New Version Of "What Hit The Pentagon?"

Numerous criticisms have been received of "What Hit the Pentagon?". Some pointed to errors, some were unfounded. The new version, version 4, has now been placed at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. I have attempted to correct errors and have added a preface to help explain the purpose of the paper.

If this proves to provoke further criticism, a version 5 may well be produced, as I regard this issue as extremely important. The fact that explosives were used at the WTC is now widely accepted by the truth movement, as the science is now well understood. In the case of the Pentagon attack, however, there is a lack of cohesion in the movement because widely differing views are held. This damages our credibility. The paper provides a study of evidence to show what can, and more importantly, what cannot, be scientifically proved. It makes the case for avoiding asserting to the public what cannot be proved. It is important to avoid action which will impede progress toward a new investigation, with the hope of prosecution of those responsible for 9/11.

"I am indebted to Kevin Barrett for pointing out that the majority of 9/11 truth movement members already believe that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon, thus the first step of the case made here is already in place – it is as if the premium on the “insurance policy” of the perpetrators has been paid and they can claim on the policy when the need arises."

"In the weeks following the announcement of my congressional run, a tidal wave of slanderous sewage washed over me and my family, much of it facilitated by Alan Giles and a cabal of operatives at 911blogger: the anonymous attack entities "Arabesque" and "Col. Jenny Sparks," the 9/11 truth sex stalker Brian Good, pugnacious Zionist LIHOPper Jon Gold, Jim Hoffman's wife or CIA/Mossad handler or whatever she is Victoria Ashley, and a half-bright jealous rival radio host named Michael Woolsey...more or less the same clique Webster Tarpley had outed as cointelpro operatives or dupes back in mid-2007."

Hey Frank... maybe you should rely on someone else's opinion. Maybe Barrie Zwicker, David Griffin, et al shouldn't defend people like this either. Nothing like Zionist witch hunts in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I don't think Kevin is qualified to talk about what the "majority" believes. Here Frank. Here is my contribution to your paper. Also, Kevin Fenton pointed me to information that suggests people's belongings from Flight 77 were found in the rubble.

I agree with your idea that the Pentagon should never have been hit. I have made that argument countless times in this movement, and have been attacked relentlessly for doing so.

The Pentagon, which sits in the most defended airspace in the world, was hit by a kamikaze commercial airliner 34 minutes after the SECOND tower was hit, when EVERYONE in the world knew America was "under attack."

That should NOT have happened. So why did it?

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Jon, while it is possible to find evidence which adds weight to the view that the 757 did hit the Pentagon, it does not help the paper. The paper was not intended to prove that a 757 hit the Pentagon. It was intended to prove that it could not be proved that it didn't.

I chose to do it that way for what I regarded, rightly or wrongly, as a good reason. The reason is that countless people have written papers attempting to prove that the 757 did hit the Pentagon, and what do we find? We find that the number of people saying it did not hit is increasing. It is increasing at a disturbing rate and a danger to the movement. I thought is was time to try something else.

It also concerns me that a group which has considerable influence, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which has long stated that it does not make the claim that no 757 hit the Pentagon, seems to be adhering to a policy of proving that it did not hit, and thus appears to be on the verge of adopting the fly-over theory. This would be a great pity as this group has done a lot of good work in obtaining FDR files and even more remarkable work getting them deciphered. They just seem to be making wrong use of the data. I am hoping they can be persuaded to review their calculations

'The paper was not intended to prove that a 757 hit the Pentagon. It was intended to prove that it could not be proved that it didn't.

I chose to do it that way for what I regarded, rightly or wrongly, as a good reason. The reason is that countless people have written papers attempting to prove that the 757 did hit the Pentagon, and what do we find? We find that the number of people saying it did not hit is increasing. It is increasing at a disturbing rate and a danger to the movement. I thought is was time to try something else.'

Now thats dishonest Frank...clever but dishonest. The fact that countless people reject bthe idea that flight 77 hit the pentagon is because of the anomalies from that hole in C ring, to lack of furrows in the lawn dug by the engines ...and of course no video evidence.
Only a few people try to assert the flight 77 story, and this latest tactic is a sign of desperation.

'disturbing rate'....only disturbing to those who continue to deny the anomalies, and ironically support the official story. Their number is diminishing.

=============================================

'On the A-3 Skywarrior the jet engines are almost flush with the bottom of the jet. That is important because if a 757 came in as low as the “missile thing” did to hit the Pentagon, the massive 757 engines would have been plowing about 2-3 feet deep into the ground and the plane would have not hit the building without leaving two deep furrows across the Pentagon lawn'

'Fetzer, who retired last June after 35 years of teaching courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, expressed pleasure over the Pilot's results, which, he said, has neatly resolved the most pressing issue that remained about the Pentagon. He added, "We have previously developed several lines of argument, each of which proves that no Boeing 757 hit the building," including these four:

(1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible.

(2) Of an estimate 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when one was shown on "The Factor". At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been visible. There are indications of a much smaller plane, but not a Boeing 757.

(3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level--physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible.

(4) Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the enormous engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a "smoking gun" proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained'http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=6133

A letter was published in the UK "Independent" newspaper last week in which the writer said that people concentrate on the twin towers but forget about the Pentagon, something she called a "security embarrassment".

I replied and included Mr Mineta's evidence about Mr Cheney's conversation.

What evidence do you have that it DID? That is the question before us and has been all along. What you have are unconfirmed eyewitness reports from the corporate owned media, some photographs of alleged impact plane debris that is acknowledged to not have been positively identified and appeals to incredulity regarding the fly-over hypothesis. That's what you have stacked against fraudulent video, fraudulent FDR data, confirmed on-the-record eyewitnesses who place the plane on the wrong flight path and much more. Indeed, Frank is right, NOTHING should have impacted the Pentagon. AND there is no scientific evidence that anything did, least of all AA77. So, why "believe" it?

You not read the links I provided above? Pay special attention to the part that says, "a common practice in the movement is to proclaim those contradictions as "fake" or "planted." In my opinion, it is irresponsible to proclaim something "fake" or "planted" simply because it doesn't coincide with what you THINK happened. Especially if there is no information to suggest that something is "fake" or "planted."

And from Frank's paper, "Critics may of course argue that these pieces did not come from the Pentagon crash site. Doubts are, however, not proofs."

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I've asked you for verifiable evidence that AA77 impacted the Pentagon. So far, like the government itself, you haven't provided any.

Doubters ask questions which may lead to truth; believers seldom do, defending their beliefs with faith. If the debris found at the Pentagon has not been positively identified there is no PROOF that it came from AA77 -- or, indeed, any aircraft airborne that day.

Agents of the US government claim "the identities of the aircraft hijacked on 9/11 were never in question" and therefore no records of positive identification were generated. That is a statement of faith, not scientific verifiable fact. I do not THINK (as you claim) the debris is "fake" or "planted" -- what I/we KNOW from the FBI/NTSB itself is that THEY have not positively identified this debris. This is on the record. Therefore the debris can not be used as evidence to support their specific contention that N644AA impacted the Pentagon.

In real life, I've NEVER met ONE person who believes AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fact that a large jet did not crash there seems to many people as obvious as the CD of WTC7.

The only people adamant on giving the benefit of the doubt of AA77's crash being true are the relatively small faction on this site and truthaction.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

With the fact that movies with blatant disinformation like "In Plane Site" were heavily distributed, and promoted at one time, or that "Meyssan's book was printed in at least 25 different languages and effectively marketed around the world," or that no video showing exactly what happened at the Pentagon has ever been released.

Or it could be that you've never talked to people like John Judge, or people that have read the book "Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11."

Funny, I've never met anyone who thinks it's a good idea to promote a theory as fact when there are a multitude of contradictions to that theory. ESPECIALLY when there is better, more convincing information to promote that ISN'T used against us at every opportunity by those who like to write and produce hit pieces.

Except a small faction of people who don't have the best interests of this cause at heart.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Now (2009-09-21) the truthaction forum is locked from the outside for anonymous visitors. I guess what goes on in there is secret now. Honestly nobody expects posts on forums to be secret in the first place do they? Come on Jon (or YT?), I understand you are annoyed..but..why resort to access restriction of an entire forum? This is childish. There'll always be opposing viewpoints in discussion...we will all be annoyed in perpetuity.

As if TA viewpoints aren't supported here! Ridiculous! In fact, I'd say 911blogger is biased towards TA. This begs the question: what is TA whining about for heaven's sake? Discussion is very important. What on earth does censorship or a boycott accomplish? 911blogger has been an absolutely excellent site for as long as I can remember (long before I was registered) ..and it improves with time, like wine. How are we going to exchange views with others about the Pentagon if we are all forced to agree? I have faith in the users here.

That's a comment by one user. I don't think John Bursill qualifies as "Truthaction". Is there really is any such thing as "TA viewpoints"? It seems to be a collection of users, like bogger . . .

Some people clearly have gotten annoyed with some of the dialog on this thread, for example. It shouldn't be that hard to see why.

This is why whenever someone calls others "asshole" or "bonehead" or other such names, it's a good idea to consider moderating their posts, otherwise people end up more and more infuriated and that will lead to more and more battles on the forum.

and I think the general rules are the guiding reference. However, I'm not a fan of censorship. (That doesn't mean I think anything goes on 911blogger)

I'm worried about the hostility at TA. I hope this can be reconciled. After all, we need to fight division, agreement to disagree should be possible also. I don't want JB to leave, nor JG, or anybody else with good intentions and good contributions.

but I'm even more worried about the recent upsurge of anti-semitism, Holocaust denial and the "muslim hijackers don't exist" meme. The former two are forbidden indirectly by the general rules, I believe. The latter ("muslim hijackers don't exist) should never be forbidden, but it does strike me as worrying that some people would deny the very existence of muslim hijackers, and thereby deny the very existence of video testaments, flight trainings and the associated anomalies. I guess I'm not one for group think, whether it be OCT or alternative theories.

The general rules also say:

(If the only comments that you bother making here are to tell others users how stupid that you think they are, your comments will be added to a moderation queue, and your user account may eventually be closed.)

So yes, I do worry. Moderation is sometimes needed. However, for strict moderation excluding all forms of ad hominem, there is always The 9/11 Forum

I'm with you, I just remarked about the apparent and repeated friction about 911blogger. I find that alarming. The administrators are up to their ears in work and mean well. And I do support a loose policy, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. The Chertoff thread got out of hand. I'm reporting it. This thread and JG's post got out of hand. But I do forgive JG for losing his temper. We're all human, and JG is targeted repeatedly by anti-semites. (Which do not include Adam, imo)

"it does strike me as worrying that some people would deny the very existence of muslim hijackers, and thereby deny the very existence of video testaments, flight trainings and the associated anomalies."

Wow. Do you really not understand the concept of "patsy" and the methods long used by intelligence agencies and corrupt officials to frame a targeted group by manufacturing "plausible" sounding paper trails and grooming of certain designated patsies from well before the crime?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: It is irresponsible to make claims about "muslim hijackers" without prefacing the terms with "alleged". What part of this do you not understand? You are using a double standard in assuming the guilt of the "muslim hijackers" when there has been no proof offered of their guilt, only plenty of obvious planted evidence and blatant inconsistencies.

By the way: care to elaborate about the flight training? I suppose they were not interested in learning how to land as a hobby? Ever heard of Ali Mohamed? Your attitude shoves aside all prior knowledge evidence. Such things as the ISI wiring money to Mohamed Atta. The BND monitoring Atta in Hamburg. Warnings by intelligence agencies. Blocked investigations by the FBI. We are treading in the murky waters of compartmentalization and double/triple agents. Some of them probably were, some of them were muslim hijackers/muslim terrorists. Yes. Muslim terrorists exist. I am dead serious.

I should know better than to engage you again. But then again, you're making it very easy for me.

Everything is fake right? Maybe. Maybe not. Explain it all away with as much fantasy as you can muster.

SnowCrash ... what are you trying to do here? That is one posting by John Bursill. I post at Truth Action and John doesn't speak for me. I think John is entitled to his opinion, especially when people like you do things like this. Why are you trying to spin Truth Action against 911Blogger. Why are you crying at all when you and other CIT supporters basically offend people who do not agree with you on a daily basis on this site, and next to nothing happens. Nobody is "forcing you to agree" to anything. You are basically just making this shit up. I can't speak for many on here that I have never met, but all I ask is that opinions can be respected and that there is no tolerance for personal attacks. AND that posts like yours get DELETED IMMEDIATELY because they are such obvious attempts to interject false claims and exaggerations about something off-topic and into a very hot debate obviously to cause trouble.

Then, if you are not doing it to cause trouble, explain what the hell you are doing because, quite frankly, you ain't so slick and it is insulting and annoying to have to point it out to you.

Attacking everybody who disagrees with THE GREAT JON GOLD with the use of baseless accusations, lame ad hominems and foul language is such a well warn tactic for you Jon. I wonder why the moderators continue to give Jon a free pass for this behavior?

'or that no video showing exactly what happened at the Pentagon has ever been released.'

now why wouldnt the govt release videos of the pentagon attack...we know they have them.
The FBI took the citgo security video within minutes of the attack, showing a wonderful presence of mind,

'Funny, I've never met anyone who thinks it's a good idea to promote a theory as fact when there are a multitude of contradictions to that theory'

thats ironic, jon,because thats what you are doing! The anomalies are what make the official story suspect, and make 9-11 truth possible. That flight 77 hit the pentagon is a theory with little supporting evidence, and a multitude of contradictions, against it: which Theirry Meyssan in 2002 was among the first to acknoweldge., long before you joined up.

once again , 911 blogger gives jon positive points...3 of them! How is he gets this and his opponents get negatives? 911 blogger has become a home for flight 77 advocates and much else that is at odds with 911 evidence.

911blogger is a place where reasonable people come to reasonable conclusions based on a reasonable interpretation of facts. I've come to understand that understanding takes time. When you're there, it's hard to deal with all the sophistry.

For example, Roosevelt Roberts describes a commercial plane making a U-turn and heading south west. How is this compatible with a flyover? A U-turn to the south west is absolutely impossible. Flyover theory is untenable. Flight path deviations is a different matter.

What pushed the generator (in real time) towards the Pentagon? What caused the gash in the generator? The hull imprint? The plane parts? The DNA? The trajectory? The witnesses to the devastation, the plane parts and the passenger remains inside the Pentagon? The exit holes? Witnesses who saw a commercial plane hit from outside and inside or so close to the facade that pull up is extremely unlikely at the speed reported? CIT's witnesses all place the plane extremely close the the facade. I can think on my own from there. (I haven't even mentioned the witnesses CIT discounts that saw the plane enter the building, perhaps for valid reasons)

It apparent that the Pentagon discussion has been rich with personal attacks. Why don't you switch on the logic button for a change? Physical evidence trumps witness testimony, which is notoriously flawed. This is demonstrated by the internal contradictions of the CIT witnesses, e.g. Turcios v.s. Brooks & Lagasse. BTW: Turcios can't be found on the CITGO security video, Lagasse didn't even remember where he was parked and Brooks was allegedly in his car.

All this because you accept the Pentagon Building Performance Report (and the impact angle) at face value because CIT told you so. Have you read it? If so, have you seen the other two exit holes not discussed in it? Were the other two punched by first responders or what?

But anyways, you seem to think that saying "Person X is bad because person X supports theory Y" is valid argumentation. It is not, it is a logical fallacy.

ETA:
That said, I will never use the "appeal to consequences" fallacy in the Pentagon/CIT discussion, but I do support the precautionary principle that dr. Legge talks about. CIT has made strong assertions it cannot back out of. This is tragic, because I have no disliking for these guys at all. If only they'd use their "bulldog" style investigative journalism for more than just the Pentagon. WTC 7, for example. There are countdown witnesses out there waiting to be grilled. I'd regret it if the Pentagon investigation became their Alamo. All this ad hominem stuff is counterproductive.

While this is true in most cases, it is not necessarily the case with this scenario especially. The prime suspects in this crime (high ups at the Pentagon) had control of the crime scene from the get go. Evidence contradicting the official story could have been removed by the criminals, and evidence supporting the official story could have been planted by the criminals, including eyewitness quotations appearing in newspapers.

I do not agree the flyover theory is untenable. In fact, if I were Rumsfeld planning this, and for whatever reason, I didn't want to take the risk of crashing a real plane into the building, I would likely think of a flyover + internal explosives myself.

"Missile" or "Global Hawk" at Pentagon might have been deliberate disinfo.

I now believe those two scenarios were deliberate disinfo to get people on the wrong track from the get go. The official story about the Pentagon is not true, but neither is the M/GH scenario.

But not "no plane." That part's true. I think the M/GH scenarios were perfect disinfo tools because they do seem, at first glance, to explain the extremely little amount of photographically available wreckage. And they're not the truth either, the truth being the flyover.

Many hit pieces have been done about CD at the WTC. That doesn't mean it's not scientifically sound.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

'Lack of publicly available evidence doesn't mean that no 757 hit the Pentagon. (a double negative)

It does fuel the speculation which divides the movement and gives our critics ammunition.'
====================================================================

Translation: flight 77 hit the pentagon, and this is the 'movements' official position.....
I have news for you...the 'movement' does not support your view at all. SOME people do...those people try to control the movement and make their views official. Stop using 'our' as if youre views alone are what make up 9-11 truth. DRG does not assert your pentagon views in his books...and his are far more representative of 'the movement'.

Frank, I understand the reason for citing Kevin, but this is likely common knowledge by many, so it doesn't seem like you should feel necessarily indebted to Kevin for it. It happened to be Kevin who told you something that many people do believe. What the truth of it is, is not known, and what the relevance of it is is also not known. It is probably correct, and your conclusions about the problems of it are probably correct. Addressing it is important, I agree.

But it's also important to acknowledge that part of the problem people have with Kevin B is that he is a long-time supporter of those who make science harder for the real scientists to do. And science is very much a part of this work. He says he does this out of friendship and community, but the vast majority of activists and researchers understand that these people do not help the cause, but instead, hurt it. There is a reason he no longer posts here and so when you praise him in a paper, people will emotionally but also critically respond. We would like to draw a line between science and emotion, but is that in our best interest?

For example, on this anniversary Kevin said in an interview: "I think it's time for the anti-Fetzer brigade to call off the witch-hunt and return to responsible critique." This implies that critique of Jim Fetzer has been mostly a "witch-hunt" and we should now finally engage in "responsible critique" of him. Who was Jim Fetzer featuring on his radio program for the 9/11 Anniversary? The Webfairy (Rosalee Grable). Killtown. A holocaust denier. These are known disruptors who basically take us backwards in every way. Posting about Jim Fetzer on the 8th Anniversary of the attacks and describing him as a victim helps no one and does not help expose truths of the attacks, but instead, helps muddy the water with division.

Kevin also openly describes other activists as "sex stalkers", cointelpro, etc. Here's what he recently posted on his blog (Jon cited this above also, but it is important):

"In the weeks following the announcement of my congressional run, a tidal wave of slanderous sewage washed over me and my family, much of it facilitated by Alan Giles and a cabal of operatives at 911blogger: the anonymous attack entities "Arabesque" and "Col. Jenny Sparks," the 9/11 truth sex stalker Brian Good, pugnacious Zionist LIHOPper Jon Gold, Jim Hoffman's wife or CIA/Mossad handler or whatever she is Victoria Ashley, and a half-bright jealous rival radio host named Michael Woolsey...more or less the same clique Webster Tarpley had outed as cointelpro operatives or dupes back in mid-2007."

Yes, this does not help the science of your paper at all! Nor does it help Jon, myself, Michael Wolsey, etc. who are not Mossad or Cointelpro or zionists.

Did you notice the contribution that Michael Wolsey and Visibility911 have made to the cause? Because of his work, in part, Blueprint for Truth and Press for Truth are being played on a public television station in Denver. That's not nothing. To describe Michael as "half-bright" is only designed to infuriate people.

This is why we are concerned when we see you publicly expressing indebtedness to someone who is treating the rest of us in this manner.

I think your paper is well done and I appreciate that you are continuing the discussion through revisions. I agree that the topic is important. My primary concern is that you may end up losing some ground in terms of the quality of the evidence and analysis under the duress of nonstop emails and pressure from those who are sure a plane couldn't have hit there. Emotions have long played a part in the Pentagon debate, and no one is immune from them. I hope you can stay strong amidst the tussle. So far, the persistence of your important conclusions is evidence that you are.

Vic, I am now persuaded that it was a psychologically bad move to refer to Kevin, but it was not bad science. It is clear that version 5 will be needed after some time has gone by to allow these comments to act as peer review. I will certainly remove this reference.

I am well aware of the good work done by the people you mention but I know little of what the known deniers are up to as I routinely delete their emails without reading them. It helps to conserve my resources.

Dr. Legge, I agree with you there's controversy over what hit the Pentagon, and the evidence that would be most compelling to many people- photos and video- is being suppressed, possibly just to fuel the controversy, and divide/distract/discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement. Other evidence- independent verification of AA 77 parts and proof they were from the crash at the Pentagon- may not even be convincing at this late date, should it be released. People here have raised legitimate objections about the integrity of any info produced by the MSM and US government, which are controlled by corrupt Establishment 'elites', though there may be honest and US loyal people working for them.

The only scientific poll on people's views of this subject (that i know of) is the Scripps 2006 poll http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll , which found that 6% of Americans believe a missile may have hit the Pentagon, and another 6% believe a missile probably hit the Pentagon (see actual poll data). This is a large number of Americans, but the same survey found that 16% believe the WTC towers "may have" or "probably" were destroyed by controlled demolition, and 36%- 3 times the number who question whether a 757 hit- "said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.". In addition, in 2007, 51% supported an investigation of the executive branch's conduct prior to, during and after 9/11 http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=1354 Shortly after the Zogby poll, Scripps did another poll which found 62% thought it "somewhat" or "very likely" that " some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings." http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/28534 And a 2006 NYTimes/CBS poll found 81% of Americans suspect a cover up on some level, and only 16% of Americans were willing to say they believe the Bush Administration is "telling the truth" re: "what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States" http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

And I'm skeptical the number of people who believe this is rising; when only certain evidence is presented, as is done by CIT, PFT, the first and second Loose Change films and others, it does appear unlikely a 757 could have hit. However, Loose Change Final Cut presents both sides of the issue (haven't seen American Coup yet) and if anyone actually investigates this info, they will quickly see that the '757 didn't hit' theory is hugely controversial in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and that many 9/11 skeptics have debunked certain claims being made by the '757 didn't hit' promoters, and their 'evidence' is not conclusive at all. They will also discover, as you've noted in your paper, there's a great deal of evidence suggesting a 757, even AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

I also question your premise that PFT is very influential- see this comparison of web traffic- note that WTC7.net (aka 911Research.WTC7.net) gets far more traffic and "september 11th pentagon attack controversy" is a top search term. Also, the sister site 911Review.com gets more hits than PFT. Neither of Hoffman's 2 sites has a forum, and are not frequently updated with 'news'; they're more geared towards presenting in depth info and analysis. PFT has both a forum and a news feed; these generate repeat visits from the same people, which increases the number of hits.http://siteanalytics.compete.com/911review.com+wtc7.net+pilotsfor911trut...

Thank you for addressing this controversy, I appreciate the approach you're taking, it's helpful.

Loose Nuke, I agree that Jim Hoffman is an excellent source of carefully researched data. I go there first, as you can see. However P4T is getting a following. A lot of what they say is excellent about the need to expose the falsehoods of the govt reports and obtain a new investigation. They could do a great deal of good if they got their calculations correct. I am being very careful to avoid criticising them as I believe they are merely mistaken, not disinfo.

You have not pointed out any calculations nor quoted any from our site with which you have concerns.

I have however pointed out your gross errors ad nauseam prior to your last revision. As i explained in my email to you, I havent had a chance to read your current revision due to the fact we are getting ready to release a major presentation regarding the events at the WTC, but hopefully you took our concerns into consideration this time and fixed your basic math errors.

You have in past revisions speculated based on G Loads required while dismissing data and witnesses, and the fact your speculation takes out the tree line between the Annex and Citgo.

Please feel free to email me with specific calculations we provide in which you feel are wrong as you have not provided any thus far, and i rarely check Blogger much anymore.

I think it would be best if we waited till you have had time to study the new version of the paper before going into this too deeply. I did however provide a hint in the paper which we can look at. I show that if you pass by the antenna 30 feet above the ground, maintaining a slope of 2 degrees, you will clip the top of pole 1 and hit the impact point on the Pentagon, without having to pull up at all. It is a straight line.

This is of course not a proper representation of what happened that day as the point of contact with pole 1 was not at the top. But as this path requires no pull up whatever it provides a hint that if the pilot or controlling device was allowed to pull up with some reasonable force the plane could pass a bit higher near the antenna and a bit lower at the pole and still hit the Pentagon at the right spot. I thought you might look into that.

Of course that path requires flying a little to the right of the antenna and you may say that cannot be permitted because the FDR has the plane high over the antenna. However, given that we all agree that the authorities cannot be trusted to tell the truth about 9/11, why do we have to believe the FDR? If the authorities wanted to sow doubt and confusion, what better way would there be to do it than by providing a file which had been "adjusted".

"I show that if you pass by the antenna 30 feet above the ground, " - Frank Legge

Frank, exactly which witnesses observed such an event and what data do you have to establish such a statement?

I'll give you a hint - Exactly none.

Have you bothered to research USGS website yet as i instructed you? Apparently not. Has Hoffman? No, he hasnt either. Hoffman still thinks our data analyzed didnt come from the NTSB im sure as we have never seen a retraction by Hoffman for his absurd claims.

"Frank, exactly which witnesses observed such an event and what data do you have to establish such a statement? "

I did not say this happened. I presented it to draw your attention to the fact that very little g-force appears to be necessary if the plane passes to the side of the antenna.

You will agree that it is a straight line from a point 30ft above the ground at the antenna through the top of pole 1 to the Pentagon, 11ft up. Hence you must agree that little g-force would be necessary. Do you not think it would be wise for you to recheck your calculations?

Can you find the segment? Its not that hard considering we did point it out to you in emails prior to your Revision 3.

We did point this out for you prior to your Revision 3. :But you ignored it like everything else, which caused you to produce a revision 4. And... you still ignore it.

Frank, how does a PhD in mathematics screw up such simple trig. especially in a "peer reviewed journal", needing my assistance? Im far from a PhD in math Frank. But your errors were so blatant even a high school student could understand. But, if you really are a PhD in math, i thank you for the kudos in your latest paper. It looks like you'll need a revision 5.

Hi Rob, I was surprised to see your remark: "...we also show its possible even over the antenna".

I had a look at your G Force presentation again and found that it still contained the assertion that a g-force of 10.14 would be required to pull the plane up before hitting the ground if it passed over the antenna. That is clearly not possible. Have you done some new calculations which show it is possible? Is the G Force presentation out of date?

Frank, we explained this to you numerous times before your Revision 3. We also pointed out other errors in your math prior to Revision 3 and it took a few emails for you to provide a Revision 4 for basic math errors. Frank, are you a PhD in Math or not? If so, where is your attention to detail? How can a PhD in math be thankful to a pilot based on basic trigonometry as pointed out in your paper? Frank, we are still waiting for you to provide source for your claims that P4T has "miscalculated". Frank, if it wasnt for me, you wouldnt even have figured out a 1 in 20 gradient with basic trig!

Note the date of the above video, it hasnt changed since last year nor since the emails we sent you prior to your 3rd Revision.

On the one hand you say in the post above that you agree with the parabola model calculation provided to you, that shows a modest g-force needed, over the antenna, 1.62, which the plane would easily cope with.

On the other hand the video clearly says that this model is "unfortunately not consistnet with ... the data provided by the government."

The video speaks very critically of the parabola model and goes on at length to show how you calculate the g-force, arriving at a value of 10.14, impossible for the plane to survive.

The only conclusion that the viewer can come to is that you reject the parabola, with its 1.62 g and accept the 10.14 g of your own calculation. So my questions to you are:

1. Given we know the authorities are lying about many things, like the use of explosives to bring down the towers, why would they not be lying in the FDR data? On your own forum is a discussion stating that the FDR heading has been altered, and the height where the data finishes is clearly far too high.

2. Why do you say the FDR data proves the official path, as shown by the damage trail, wrong? Why do you not allow that it may be that the damage trail proves the FDR data wrong?

What better way for the authorites to confuse the truth seekers than to give them a file which has been "adjusted". Should we not be free to find a path which the plane may have flown to produce the observed damage? Only if we cannot find such a path will we be able to say in a scientific manner that the 757 could not have done the observed damage.

Frank, when you asked me if i thought it was possible for a 757 to hit the pentagon, do you remember what i replied in the email? Please go re-read it.

Heres a hint: Of course its possible, my grandma can hit the pentagon, its the largest building in the world!

The parabola shows a possible scenario when you ignore all other variables. There is no "on the other hand".

Frank, I know you would rather dismiss all data and witness to fit your theory, but that is not how science works.

1. It is impossible for a 757 to hit the pentagon based on topography, obstacles and data.
2. It is impossible for ANY aircraft to have caused the physical damage at the pentagon from the flight path observed by numerous independently corroborated witnesses interviewed on location.

These are factual statements which take into consideration all the variables, unlike your paper which throws out all evidence and data, is loaded with double negatives, asserts logical fallacies of attempting to prove a negative, and is mere opinion. Frank, your paper is not a scientific paper. Its an opinion piece loaded with speculation and logical fallacies and should be posted in an Op-Ed, not JONES.

"Why do you say the FDR data proves the official path, as shown by the damage trail, wrong? Why do you not allow that it may be that the damage trail proves the FDR data wrong?" - Frank Legge

Frank, please source from our site where we claim the FDR is proof of anything?

You have used this false claim, unsourced, for quite some time Frank. We have asked you for source time and time again and shown you to be wrong on such a claim time and time again. I have told you time and time again that i have specifically stated in many interviews that the FDR does not "prove" anything. The fact that the NTSB claims the FDR is authentic, and it doesnt support an impact, and the fact you wish to hand waive such an issue, is alarming.

Frank, again, please provide source of the above claim. Or admit you are wrong once again, now to the point of flat out lying as we have corrected you on this multiple times in the past. We are also still waiting for you to provide source of your claim that we made incorrect calculations. Either provide source or retract your statements as invalid, or admit you are a liar.

Frank, its clear you hand waive the FDR data. You may want to ask yourself why the following list grows with highly credible people who understand the information and the implications of the data either being flawed, fraudulent or authentic.

Frank, if the data is flawed or fraudulent, its as alarming as it being accurate. I dont expect you'll understand.

As for the csv heading data being altered, that was done by someone not affiliated with our organization and he has since pulled all his research. We left the email up on our forum but have pulled it from our main site. Feel free to contact the person directly.

1. It is impossible for a 757 to hit the pentagon based on topography, obstacles and data.

But apparently, it is possible for a 757 to approach erratically, barely miss the roof of Pentagon and a fireball, make a u-turn to the south west back to the Navy Annex, undetected by all but one direct witness. Have you done calculations on that too?

2. It is impossible for ANY aircraft to have caused the physical damage at the pentagon from the flight path observed by numerous independently corroborated witnesses interviewed on location.

Perhaps. On three conditions.

The premise that the Pentagon Building Performance Report is valid, but all the other physical evidence is not, and was instead elaborately faked (Pushing a generator towards the Pentagon, etc.) The premise that there is no cover-up of the flight path and the other two exit holes were punched by first responders. On that last point I am waiting for more information.

The witnesses (which draw flight paths which have internal inconsistencies until they meet at the Pentagon) are all absolutely correct and aren't handicapped in their observations by speed and foreshortening, and such things as not being on the CITGO security tape, not remembering where you where parked, and being in your car. While one AC witness has the 757 to the north of the Navy Annex, Terry Morin has it on the south edge. Turcios conflicts with Brooks and Lagasse, imo.

The other witnesses are embellishing, deducing, incorrect (in some cases, this appears to be so), or lying or perhaps even hired by the government to lie.

By not mentioning these three conditions (especially the first one) and assuming them to be satisfied, you set yourself up for tunnel vision. Most fall into this trap of rejecting all government data but the PBPR, Brooks, and Lagasse. (critical vantage points). I don't.

If you provide specific aircraft type, detailed speed, heading, altitude and configuration data, we can be more precise than the above calculations, as we have done with the data for the Govt story.

Bottom line, the North Approach is very possible based on general witness statements. No one can expect any witness to determine exact aircraft type, configuration, speed, altitude or headings to any precise measure.

The Govt story flight path demands much more precision as data is provided. Based on data, topography, obstacles and alleged type aircraft, it is impossible for a 757 to have navigated such a precise approach to cause the physical damage at the pentagon without tearing itself apart first. This is a fact.

Feel free to review the calculations and submit what is incorrect. We're still waiting for Legge to provide source for his claims.

'After establishing his credibility and standing in the movement with the CD research and advocacy, he then suddenly did a back flip in 2004 and became almost a LIHOPer advocate, in that he bagan to support the possibility that there really could have been muslim hijackers involved, at least in the WTC attack and UA93, if not the Pentagon attack (since it was obvious that Hani Hanjour could not have been at the controls). So, he suddenly became a supporter of the OCT of the AA77 crash at the Pentagon and shifted from a skeptic to a supporter of the OCT of at least most of the cell phone calls, except for the 2 that were the most ridiculous:

Jim Hoffman of 9/11 Research, 9/5/2003:
"Pentagon Attack
The damage to the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a large jetliner.
Evidence
No public evidence shows a 757 approaching the Pentagon, nor remains of such an aircraft.
There are no photographs showing a 757 approaching the Pentagon. 5 security camera photos released in 2002 do not show anything like a 757, but do show a vapor trail like that of a missile.
Video recordings from adjacent businesses were seized by the FBI shortly after the attack and never seen since.
The lawn of the Pentagon outside the west wall was free of aircraft parts identifiable as belonging to a 757. The few small scraps photographed look like they belonged to a much smaller aircraft such as a Global Hawk."
Aircraft Remains
As the photographs immediately following the attack show, the punctures in the west wall of the Pentagon were far smaller than the profile of a Boeing 757-200, and the lawn was nearly immaculate, free of any large aircraft debris. The few scraps that appear in some photographs are far too thin and light to be part of such an aircraft. Photographs show curious activities by apparent Pentagon employees at the crash site before the arrival of rescue and recovery workers. Much of this evidence is presented and analyzed in the documentary Painful Deceptions. A video taken from a helicopter shows a row of dozens of men in white shirts and ties walking across the lawn in front of the crash site, looking at the ground as if to scour the grass for any telltale evidence. A photo shows about a dozen similarly dressed individuals carrying away a large crate covered with a tarp. Another shows a few such men carrying away small pieces of wreckage. This was all happening around the time firefighters were arriving on the scene. "

Jim Hoffman of 9/11 Research, 6/12/2007:
"But wasn't the damage to the Pentagon's facade inconsistent with the crash of a jetliner the size of a Boeing 757?
No. Contrary to misleading descriptions popularized by popular books and videos, damage to the facade included punctures extending about 100 feet in width on the first floor and about 18 feet on the second floor. Damage on either side of the impact punctures extends about as far as the profile of a 757's wings. Lacking an example of a closely comparable crash, claims that the Pentagon's crash damage is inconsistent with the impact of a 757 lack scientific merit.
But don't photographs immediately after the attack show that there was no plane wreckage?
No. First, since most pre-collapse photographs were taken from the highway -- more than 500 feet away from the crash site -- they fail to show debris fields near the building. Second, the impact punctures were large enough to allow vast majority of the plane's mass to enter the Pentagon. Third, other crash examples show that such a high-speed crash could be expected to shred the aircraft into small, mostly unrecognizable debris. "

After establishing his credibility and standing in the movement with the CD research and advocacy, he then suddenly did a back flip in 2004 and became almost a LIHOPer advocate, in that he bagan to support the possibility that there really could have been muslim hijackers involved, at least in the WTC attack and UA93, if not the Pentagon attack

There were muslim hijackers involved, which is why they were training in Venice, in the state governed by Bush's brother. (Of course, all those people in Venice must have been hallucinating).

I've seen you comment about this before. You have a naive notion of Islam, in which its adherents, Muslims, do not sin. Wrong. They sin as much as Christians do. In fact, suicide terrorists receive their ticket to paradise as soon as they spill their first drop of blood in a martyrdom operation. All sins are forgiven and virgins await. Or at least, so they are told.

In America, you can sin. There is no Guardian Council nor are their secret agents watching over you. Given the prospect of guaranteed paradise through a martyrdom operation, what good is the observation, often used to cast doubt on Atta's terror links, that Atta liked drugs and women? What would you do if you had only a few more months to live, with the assurance of entry into paradise?

I don't accept this naive perception of combined politically and religiously motivated terrorism. Nor do I have to choose between either an exclusively foreign terrorist operation or an exclusively domestic terrorist operation. It's more complex than that. Lines between these two worlds are blurred and nobody should accept such a false choice.

Really? Can you provide one single piece of independently verifiable evidence that this statement is true? If not, why the double standard in assuming guilt of muslims? Any statement which does not put the word "alleged" before "muslim hijackers" is incredibly irresponsible, especially when considering the fact that it is exactly this unproven presumption of guilt by "muslims" in the minds of the US and western populations that has served to excuse the mass murder of millions of Arab/Muslim peoples during the last 8 years of the "War on Terror".

"You have a naive notion of Islam, in which its adherents, Muslims, do not sin. Wrong. They sin as much as Christians do. In fact, suicide terrorists receive their ticket to paradise as soon as they spill their first drop of blood in a martyrdom operation. All sins are forgiven and virgins await. Or at least, so they are told."

Wow. That is an incredibly bigoted statement, SnowCrash. If you really believe that "muslims" believe that in general, then you are relying too much on mainstream/western propaganda and bias. I'd say that it is you who has a naive notion of islam.

I've watched terrorist propaganda with a friend from Afghanistan who translates and puts it into context. I know things about Afghanistan that go beyond the things you read about on websites and talk about with your like-minded friends. Yet you know it all, don't you?

Me and him must have misinterpreted all the loud mouth suicide terrorist propaganda under the guise of Islamic martyrdom by the likes of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa, Jemaah Islamiya and Hezbollah.

If I thought you were worth it, I would tell you more. But you aren't, especially not after the bigot accusation.

Even if that was true - i.e., that there was a pro-terrorist propaganda movie made in Afghanistan - HOW IS IT IN ANY WAY FAIR TO PRESUME THE GUILT OF THE DESIGNATED MUSLIM "TERRORIST HIJACKERS" for 9/11, absent any independently verifiable proof that there were any hijackings at all that took place, let alone "muslim hijackers"?

I'm curious why you have decided to rely on Hoffman's impact eyewitness analysis work when those same eyewitness accounts have not been independently verified and confirmed.

Other alleged impact eyewitnesses when asked to provide independent verification have stated their words were added to press accounts, they deduced the plane hit, or the media misspoke when they hadn't seen the plane impact at all. A far cry from an true impact witness.

I think one must error on the side of caution when relying on eyewitnesses accounts found in the mainstream media until actually verified on film or in audio interviews in person. The mainstream media has a habit of embellishing facts, distorting views, manipulating accounts, and outright lying.

For example many witnesses were reported to have seen light poles being hit by the plane when in fact that is not the truth as discovered via follow up interviews.

I believe it was the account of Penny Elgas that the press reported "...stopped as she saw a passenger jet descend, clip a light pole near her.”
This press account is completely wrong. When Penny was contacted directly to confirm her account, as can be heard here: http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/pe_060509.mp3
What did she actually see hit the pole? Nothing!

PENNY ELGAS: No, I didn't see it hit. I heard on the news that it hit a light pole.

Another example is “The plane approached the Pentagon… clipping a light pole, a car antenna… It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in.” This statement was attributed to Lee Evey, the Pentagon renovation manager. But upon verification of his account, we discover he was not a witness to the plane, the attack, or the light poles. He was at home at the time of the attack!!

So again, another account in the mainstream media that is completely fabricated. With regards to the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon, just because the press says its true, doesn't make it so.
Again a far cry from what the press stated she saw versus reality. That is why independent eyewitness verification needs to be completed before relying on press accounts of eyewitness statements.

I quote Jim Hoffman because he has gone to the trouble of assembling reports from several sources. I do not claim an eye witness report is proof of anything. That goes for both "hit the Pentagon" and "flew over". The reports are indications, and the weight they carry depends on numbers and, as you say, verification.

I have to disagree with you, Frank. The 'indications and the weight they carry' are based upon verifications alone not just numbers as I think we can all agree the press lies, manipulates, and distorts. 1 verified account of an incident far outweighs 100 published lies of the same account.
CIT of course has verified eyewitness accounts of the day that were previously published albet as unnamed sources via the Center For Military History.

I respect Hoffman of course for his 9/11 Truth work, but to quote him and his work in support of an impact because of "his trouble of assembling reports from several sources" and to not seriously quote or examine CIT's work even though their efforts consisted of driving to D.C. in order to verify eyewitness accounts on film regarding the Pentagon attack appears to show your bias against a fly over theory. Is the "Internet Detective" given more credibility than the "Gumshoe on the Ground compiling evidence? It appears so.

The verified numbers at this point for the "fly over" theory far outweigh the impact theory. The impact theory lacks verified eyewitness accounts and as I highlighted above, several alleged impact witnesses are not impact witnesses at all. Quality, through verification, not quantity.

The entire paper rests upon the premise that something hit the Pentagon. This discounts the entire examination of a flyover from the beginning! Isn't that starting with the conclusion and working backwards to find evidence to support the conclusion? Didn't NIST do the same thing with regards to their reports?

The evidence in the form of part numbers and serial numbers is not present to examine so the debris in the picture lack the ability to be verified. The piece of evidence released to the public and examined by Pilots For 9/11 Truth has been shown to be fraudulent and manipulated.

One other note as I explained in the last post regarding the number of witnesses who 'would' have saw a fly over. That can be explained by the perceptual blindness as to why they didn't see a fly over even exist.

I'm curious why do you seem to chuck aside CIT's work because there were no press account s of a flyover when indeed there is a verified account of a witness, Pentagon employee, Roosevelt Roberts. There is another account of a woman who thought the plane hit the other side of the Pentagon. How does that opinion get formed without a fly over?

After all, NIST ignored the firefighters accounts with regards to the explosions at the WTC complex in order to justify not investigating the controlled demolition hypothesis for WTC 1,2, & 7. The fly-over theory in your paper is treated with a similar approach. Because there are not large numbers of people in the press describing the fly-over, then that is used as evidence in support your minor hypothesis.

I also find further fault with your minor hypothesis. You state that there is no scientific proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.
The ONLY logical conclusion you must adhere to then is that a 757 did hit the Pentagon. If there is no proof it did not hit the Pentagon, then you must by logic accept that it did. After all, missiles do not look like 757's passenger jets especially to a Pentagon air traffic controller nor is there evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon.

And then to appease all sides you state that "...that I did I did not say in the paper a 757 hit the Pentagon." No Frank, you didn't state that of course but we know that is what you believe and this is the bias identified within the paper itself.

You examine pictures that Hoffman has posted and accepted that as evidence that a 757 did hit the Pentagon.

The fact is your hypothesis relies upon the government's story and their publicly released evidence as being true despite the overwhelming number of verified lies the government has told us about 9/11already. The scientific approach would examine the FDR which has already been found to be fraudulent and manipulated which casts doubt on the story. The video evidence appears to manipulated and fraudulent and is inconclusive. And the public will most like never see the parts and serial numbers from the debris. And yet the premise of your paper relies on the governments honesty and unverified eyewitness accounts.

I take your precautions to heart about this issue. I don't see any scientific proof one way or the other which resolves the question of what hit the Pentagon. Therefore, it's not smart to speculate. Let an investigation try to answer that. In order to get the investigation, we should focus on the 2 main points: 1) That nothing should have hit the Pentagon. And the fact that something did implies a stand-down order which seems to be confirmed by Norm Mineta's testimony. 2) Authorities could easily show us what did, but refuse to do so, which implies a cover up.

Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon is not inconsistent with "inside job." A belief that it wasn't 77 has potential risks, as Victronix has been saying all along.
So I think that despite an unpopular name-dropping, Frank has done a service. Since there's no scientific proof to resolve this question, unlike the WTC, the best strategy is to promote the 2 main points of this conclusion. Then when an investigation is in place, it can seek to provide the answer to this enigmatic question.. That's just good Chess.

'GUMBEL: Did you see it hit the Pentagon? Was the plane coming in
horizontally or did it, in fact, go on its wing as--as it impacted the
building?

To which Walter responded with

Mr. WALTER: You know, the--the--the--there were trees there that kind of
obstructed it, so I kind of--I saw it go in. I'm not sure if it turned
at an angle. I've heard some people say that's what it did. All I know
is it--it created a huge explosion and massive fireball and--and you
knew instantaneously that--that everybody on that plane was dead. It was
completely eviscerated. 'http://www.mail-archive.com/cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com/msg00427.html

You wrote:
"[CIT bases] their view on interviews with a
number of eye witnesses who say that the plane passed to the north of the Citgo service station.
If this is correct, the plane could not have lined up with the light poles and hence could not
have caused the observed damage to the Pentagon. [snip]

"It is part of this [fly-over] theory that the view of the departing plane was obscured by the effects of an
explosion which caused the damage to the Pentagon. While this might have obscured the view
from observers in line with the approach path, there would have been many potential observers
with a clear view from different directions. In particular the view over the roof of the Pentagon
from the elevated road to the south would be very likely to produce numerous eye witness
reports. Given the failure of such a body of reports to arise, *while there are many reports of the
plane hitting the Pentagon*, it is not surprising that this theory, which is at present gaining
supporters, has received criticism.34"

1: You do not establish the critical difference between "reports" of eyewitnesses seeing the plane hit the Pentagon and the light poles VS independently verified RECORDS of eyewitness accounts which in many instances were earlier reported and recorded by the Library of Congress and the Center for Military History. The former are HERE-SAY reports published by the corporate media (which we know to be helping cover-up the events of 9/11 and which, therefore, can not be trusted) while the latter are established, face-with-the-name RECORDS, many of them recorded on-site, on-camera. If you want this paper to be considered "scientific" then you must include this distinction between UNVERIFIED (here-say) reports and independently verified RECORDS. These two data sets can not be considered equal in value for establishing possible fact.

2: Although it may seem reasonable to conclude, "...there would have been many potential observers with a clear view from different directions [of a fly-over]. In particular the view over the roof of the Pentagon from the elevated road to the south would be very likely to produce numerous eye witness reports." the absence of such reports can not be considered conclusive. As stated it is nothing more than an appeal to incredulity. You fail to acknowledge A) the independently verified account of Rosevelt Roberts, initially recorded by the Library of Congress, later independently verified by CIT, of a commercial aircraft flying low over the south parking lot immediately after the explosion at the Pentagon; B) the possibility that there were fly-over witnesses whose accounts were obscured or suppressed or unreported; C) the appearance of the C-130 which was falsely reported to have been "shadowing" the attack plane and could have led fly-over witnesses to (falsely) assume that they had seen this second plane instead of a the fly-over attack plane and D) the reality that flights to and from Regan National Airport are a common site around the Pentagon. Any criticism of the fly-over hypothesis that does not include the verified account of Rosevelt Roberts and these other considerations can not be considered "objective."

You wrote:

"As stated above the authorities could easily show what hit the Pentagon, as they have many
video tapes of the event. That they choose not to do so must be because confusion serves their
purpose. The situation to bear in mind is that the perpetrators may be keeping evidence in
reserve which will prove that a 757 did hit the Pentagon. This evidence would be their
insurance policy. If they feel endangered by the progress of public opinion toward demanding a
new investigation, and realizing that this will likely lead to criminal charges and convictions,
they will produce this evidence. As many members of the 9/11 truth movement believe that no
757 hit the Pentagon, this evidence will throw the movement into disarray and create crippling
loss of credibility over issues which are far more important. It will become very difficult to
argue convincingly that explosives were used at the WTC.39

"Those who are not of the opinion that a 757 hit the Pentagon should bear in mind that it is
possible that they have been deliberately deceived by false evidence and have been set up by
this evidence to serve the purpose of the perpetrators, when the time comes. The release of an
FDR file deliberately modified to contradict eye witness reports appears to be a case in point."

This "honey pot," precautionary principal -- that it is prudent for the truth movement to be wary of coming to a 'no-impact at the Pentagon' conclusion regardless of the evidence -- has been disrupting and dividing the truth movement for years. It is time to be done with it once and for all. It is not not objective and certainly not "scientific".

We have established via FOIA that there is no positively identified plane debris, including the FDR itself. We have established that the FDR data provided is altered, therefore fraudulent and therefore evidence of a cover-up. We have established that multiple eyewitnesses who can be confirmed to have been present and in a position to see precisely what happened, report a plane on a heading that is irreconcilable with the physical damage (light poles and path within the Pentagon). We have one confirmed eye-witness of a plane flying low over the south parking lot immediately after the explosion at the Pentagon. We have considerable reason to speculate that the 'low and level across the lawn' security camera video is fraudulent (smoke trail dissipates too rapidly, casts no shadow, etc.). We also have the fact that ALL of the physical evidence which could prove conclusively and scientifically precisely what happened at the Pentagon is under the control of the prime suspect AND HAS NOT BEEN MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.

Indeed, no doubt they do have video footage of the Pentagon event -- but we have no reason to conclude, given the obfuscations and out-right falsifications that have been released to date, that ANY evidence coming from government or military sources will be any less deceptive than what has been provided thus far. As I have said many times in various forums, we're not asking the government to prove something difficult or absurd, such as the idea that a UFO hit the Pentagon. They make the claim that it was specifically AA77 (N644AA.), a large, hijacked, Boeing aircraft. Although there is no *officially stated* "flight path," the physical evidence is precise: the plane (if any) that caused this damage would had to have flown on a very tight, narrow path and would had to have flown south of Columbia Pike and then descended from the VDOT to fly low and level across the lawn such that it impacted the building precisely at ground level yet without the engines causing ANY recorded damage to either the lawn or the foundation of the building. The government account is fantastic, that is to say, near miraculous, on its face, made even more so with the release of data sets that are obfuscatory and false and contradicted by confirmed eyewitness statements. All this is strong evidence of a cover-up at the Pentagon and a no-impact hypothesis.

The question that needs to be asked is, if the government has ACTUAL verifiable evidence that AA77 (N644AA) struck the Pentagon as claimed, WHY have they withheld it for all these years? If the government and military have nothing to hide, WHY are their data sets obfuscatory? I think the answer is very simple and obvious: They do not have such evidence and they do not have it because AA77 did not impact the Pentagon.

There is also a second question that needs to be asked: Given all this, why is it that the 9/11 Truth community has been divided and continues to be divided by this specific Pentagon event? Again, IF AA77 impacted the Pentagon as claimed this should be near OBVIOUS, not something that requires years of research to conclude. Yet, we are not provided with factual evidence from which this conclusion can be drawn. On the contrary. Moreover, the movement is kept divided and ill informed about this evidence often with direct attacks against the character of those who have brought much of this information forward -- without coherently and conclusively addressing the evidence provided (such as giving unverified media "reports" the same credibility as independently verified witness records or speculating that for something to be true it must have been witnessed and those witness accounts must have been reported, etc.)

It is high time for this to stop. Regardless what one "believes" happened, there is no independently verifiable evidence that AA77 impacted the Pentagon (nor is there any such evidence that some other aircraft or missile caused the physical damage due to impact). What we have in its place is strong evidence of a cover-up and obfuscation of the actual event. I see no reason for the 9/11 Truth community to continue to remain divided over what happened at the Pentagon. Indeed, it would be helpful if we had more than one fly-over witness. Indeed it would be helpful if persons critical of the fly-over hypothesis would address the credibility of the confirmed North of Citgo witnesses without recourse to appeals to incredulity.

I think it is time, Frank, for another version of your paper. Based upon what Painter has said, and the fact that the CIT witnesses reporting the North of Citgo flight path have been confirmed via eyewitness accounts which were first read about in the Center For Military History places far greater weight on their testimony than alleged impact witnesses testimony that have yet to be confirmed as authentic

They were first reported and then verified. Plain and simple. It is the impact witnesses that need to be verified. And it appears the more verification that takes place, the fewer the number of impact witnesses remain.

Painter brings up an important point....

Why the controversy over the video, the faking of the FDR, etc. if the PLANE IMPACTED THE PENTAGON? Even if a missile hit (no evidence), then a plane didn't. If the plane didn't then impact the Pentagon, then it flew over. Its that simple. Perhaps there are dozens of people who reported a fly over but whose testimony didn't make the light of day. I guess the phone records of the day might shed light on that issue but they are being withheld by the FBI. A skeptic might wonder why.

If the plane flew North of Citgo, as many independent eyewitnesses verify that it did, then it didn't impact at the official point and must have flown over. This leaves of course explosive damage to cause the cone and the light poles and flight path staged.

If the plane flew north of citgo, it did not hit the building. Period. People all across the spectrum from Jim Hoffman to Pat Curley seem to recognize this.

This is why not one of CIT's critics has tried to reconcile a north approach with an impact. As such, they try to discredit the veracity of the NoC witnesses.

Mr. Legge, food for thought: You don't like "long posts" as neither do I.

I also dislike extremely lengthy blog entries (i.e. Arabesque's blog) which attempt to "prove" that all the north approach witnesses are mistaken.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

It seems a few people can't hack a double negative but why should I shy away from its excellent logical outcome for these few? There are those who say that the 757 could not have hit the Pentagon. The paper shows that every observation they present as proof does not stand up. That is pure clean science.

No building ever fell the way WTC 7 did that wasn't a controlled demolition. [or something like that]

Personally, I think a smaller jet like a 737, full of explosives, hit the pentagon via the north path but that is a lonely position. No worries, that's my theory and I'm stickin to it, I live it, I love it, criticism be damned. ;-)

It cannot be proven that flight 77 did not hit the pentagon.

It cannot be proven that flight 77 did hit the Pentagon.

Until we can get a new investigation and see the videos, we won't know for sure what caused the damage.

If we can't convince each other, how the hell are we going to convince OCT believers? Let's agree do disagree agreeably.

So I offer this as a common ground:

It has not been clearly established what caused the damage to the pentagon.

This is consistent with all the theories and favors none.

Bottom line, I recommend what you proposed:

Nothing should have hit the Pentagon.
I have found that to far more effective with OCTers than any other statement about the Pentagon.

Frank, have you viewed CIT's work in whole? Not just the newly released National Security alert, but all of the interviews of verified eyewitnesses accounts on film who have confirmed a North of the Citgo approach to the Pentagon?

Painter, I have more to do than read long posts in blogs. Let it be known that I will not respond to any that are too long and I will be the judge of length. If you have a factual point that needs addressing in the paper a few lines should suffice. You say:

"The question that needs to be asked is, if the government has ACTUAL verifiable evidence that AA77 (N644AA) struck the Pentagon as claimed, WHY have they withheld it for all these years? If the government and military have nothing to hide, WHY are their data sets obfuscatory? I think the answer is very simple and obvious: They do not have such evidence and they do not have it because AA77 did not impact the Pentagon."

I think there is another explanation and it is set out in the paper. If I am right the consequences of being wrong will be severe. I suggest you carefully read the section under "Precautionary Principle".

"Let it be known that I will not respond to any that are too long and I will be the judge of length. If you have a factual point that needs addressing in the paper a few lines should suffice."

Wow. Your lame excuses for not responding to valid criticisms/questions about your "scientific" paper are shockingly similar to the types of arguments and rhetoric of those who support the official story. Perhaps you should apply for a position at NIST. I think your arguments and reasoning style would fit perfectly with those types. Are you just not open to rigorous peer review when it comes to the subject of the Pentagon?

Sad...very sad. Frank, it's too bad that, when it comes to the subject of the Pentagon attack, you seem unable to utilize the same level of thoroughness and sourcing that you have shown in your papers on the WTC demolitions. Such a strange incongruity. It almost seems as though you have an agenda with wanting to steer the discourse regarding the Pentagon attack towards a pre-determined conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Your statement above, "We find that the number of people saying [AA77] did not hit [the Pentagon] is increasing. It is increasing at a disturbing rate and a danger to the movement. I thought is was time to try something else," makes me extremely skeptical of your motives. Why do you feel it is your duty to influence people away from disbelieving that AA77 hit the Pentagon? Why is the simple search for truth, no matter where it leads, not your primary agenda?

I'm extremely mistrustful of anybody who feels that it is a "danger to the movement" to disbelieve any part of the OCT which has not come even close to being shown to be true, such as the official tale of AA77 having hit the Pentagon. The point is that the government has not offered anything in the way of independently verifiable evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon, and what they have offered is hopelessly riddled with blatant contradictions and falsehoods. Why is it Dr. Frank, that you so fervently work to dissuade people from questioning the OCT of the Pentagon attack, absent any credible evidence that this part of the OCT is true (especially after so much of the OCT has been proven to be untrue) --only the say so of the same people who say that building 7 and the twin towers were not felled with explosives? And why jump on the bandwagon of the small group of people led by Jim Hoffman, Arabesque, etc., who denounce those who seek to keep the burden of proof on the supporters of the OCT as "hurting the movement"? Is this comment too long for you to respond to as well?

when there's no proof it didn't, and the evidence for that hypothesis is contradicted by other evidence?

If conclusive evidence surfaces that AA 77 didn't hit and disproves all the contradictory evidence, then it might make sense to claim that. As AA 77 may well have hit, those who are telling people '9/11 was an inside job cuz AA 77 didn't the Pentagon' may be telling them something that's not true.

Seems truth seekers and justice activists will care about that- as well as be concerned about the possibility that the whole controversy about the Pentagon is being hyped to divide and discredit the Truth Movement.

It's a fact that photos, video, documents related to the Pentagon event are being suppressed- so point that out and advocate for its release.

NOTHING should have hit the Pentagon; that's a fact that's not disputed in the 9/11 Truth Movement, that I've seen; it's only disputed by apologists for the OCT- even though the 9/11 Commission Report admits DCANG fighters were not "airborne" until 10:38 am (44), and says the NMCC was informed about UA93's hijacking at 10:03 am, but doesn't say what, if anything, they did with the info. (42)

>>Again, IF AA77 impacted the Pentagon as claimed this should be near OBVIOUS, not something that requires years of research to conclude.

It is to 94%+ of Americans (according to the poll). There is nothing to research about what hit there.

But most Americans do perk up when we ask why the military could not respond, and begin to point out that the oddities of that situation. CooperativeResearch.org is an excellent resource for the powerful evidence that suggests a stand-down.

Unlike much of the "what hit there debate", which Frank is trying to bring into a zone of agreement, some aspects about the Pentagon are facts that we already all agree on, such as when the first plane struck the WTC and (approximately) when the Pentagon was struck.

The time between these two events is a fact that likely 99%+ of Americans don't know and are often shocked to hear. That opens the door to the stand down.

These types of facts can function like the fact of the visual destruction of Building 7 -- people don't know anything about these facts, but when they do, this one fact is so shocking that it opens their eyes.

You don't need 100 different facts. Just a few very strong ones can do everything necessary.

The standard refrain that "it was all just a mistake" begins to become more and more difficult to believe when a few very stark facts -- not hyped too-small hole sizes, or edited witness remarks about "missiles", "no debris", and "flyover" claims -- are put to people.

The question is not about proving that AA77 hit there. The question is how we can best bring forward the strongest facts that we already know and can agree on.

What bothers me here is the insistence on IGNORING equally strong evidence in the form of the independently verified North of Citgo eyewitnesses. I've shown "National Security Alert" to MANY people, including Peter Dale Scott, who knew very little about the events at the Pentagon and ALL I have shown it to find these witnesses very credible. Now, as you know, Peter has come under attack for his endorsement of NSA and had to make a public qualifying statement -- a statement he made to me privately immediately after viewing NSA -- that although he regarded NSA as "one of the best 9/11 videos" he's seen and although he finds these witness accounts VERY strong and credible, he is reluctant to embrace the "fly-over theory". Peter is an academic, very cautious with his public statements and understandably so. I respect him for that. Nevertheless, the facts are the facts -- UNLESS it can be shown that all these witnesses are either mistaken or lying, we have no choice but to seriously consider the fly-over hypothesis. As Peter is indicating to all, these witnesses and their accounts should NOT be ignored. Appeals to incredulity for the apparent dearth of fly-over witness accounts and statements that these confirmed eyewitness accounts are outweighed by unconfirmed published reports does not serve this movement.

The point that I, P4T and CIT have made over and over and over again is that the fly-over hypothesis IS NOT OUR THEORY -- it is the ONLY inescapable conclusion that can be drawn from these eyewitness accounts. Either they are all mistaken in the same way, either they are all lying for some unknown reason or the plane they saw fly over the Naval Annex also flew over the Pentagon -- because there is no damage at the Pentagon that matches the approach, speed and bank angle they describe. Attacks on the character or presentation style of P4T or CIT do NOT counter the weight of these witnesses. This is the point that Peter Dale Scott and others has grasped. Peter has called for an end to these attacks and a discussion OF THE EVIDENCE -- not whether or not that evidence is "believable" by some mythical or hypothetical "somebody" who knows nothing about 9/11.

Again, having shown NSA to over two dozen people who are unfamiliar with 9/11 events, even events at the WTC, the overwhelming reaction has been one of "credible" -- whether one fully embraces the fly-over hypothesis or not. Also again NOT OUR THEORY -- it is the inescapable conclusion drawn from the eyewitness accounts. That or some other verifiable hypothesis must be put forward to account for their observations. So far, none has been forthcoming.

Regardless of what caused the damage at the Pentagon, the video released by the government was a crime of deception foisted on the public. It is a crime of deception, because, even if it is unaltered, with no missing frames, it shows nothing that can be identified and is therefore unresponsive to the FOIA request to which it purportedly was replying.

Is it me or have the revisions of this paper acutually gotten more convoluted?

Is it typical for the author of an alleged scientific paper to wait until the 3rd revision before bothering to state the hypothesis? I find it rather odd how this version opens with a note actually defending the "scientific" nature of the paper.

Furthermore I find the "minor and major hypotheses" presented to also be rather odd.

Legge wrote:

"The minor hypothesis of the paper is that there is no scientific proof that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon."

One would think that if this was his hypothesis he would directly address or refute the evidence that he is clearly dismissing as invalid. Legge does not directly address the incredible amount of evidence presented in CIT's National Security Alert at all let alone refute it.

As painter already explained very well, casually suggesting that other people have "estimated" that there are 89 secondhand media accounts of a plane impact (false claim) does not refute the definitive firsthand evidence CIT presents for a north side approach proving the plane did not hit.

This kind of outright dismissal is very reminiscent to me as to how mainstream sources treat the evidence for controlled demolition at the WTC.

Legge goes on to state his "major hypothesis":

"The major hypothesis is that if various groups within the 9/11 truth movement strongly assert contradictory views it will weaken the credibility of the movement as a whole. The damage is exacerbated if the supporters of these views not only disagree but also attack one another."

Yet he does not attempt to provide any evidence for this at all. This "hypothesis" amounts to nothing but a blanket statement. Even if it is generally true it has no relevance to the evidence proving a deception and no valid case is made to dismiss this evidence that he has simply failed to address all together. This hardly seems like what I would call a valid hypothesis at all, and again, simply amounts to an opinion. Out of context I agree with the statement in general but so what? This would be similar to stating something like, "When people argue about information, they tend to not get along." Of course that's the case but I fail to see how claiming this as a "hypothesis" is a valid or scientific approach to this complex issue or valid way to address the definitive evidence presented by CIT and P4T that so many people are starting to understand and accept the importance of right now.

This seems more like a call to ignore and dismiss evidence rather than a scientific approach to discuss it.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Hi Adam, I am glad you brought that point up about not explicitly stating the hypotheses until version 3.

As I have already pointed out, countless people have made the case that flight 77 did hit the Pentagon and it has not had as much impact as one would expect - people keep arguing against it, causing disputation to the detriment of the truth community. I tried to find a new approach in order to get the question raised and have people take a fresh look at it. Instead of stating the hypothesis that a 757 appeared to have hit the Pentagon I asked the question "What hit the Pentagon?" then developed the hypothesis that it cannot be proved that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. It seems to have worked as a number of people have pointed out that is should be easier to find common ground with this double negative hypothesis than with the standard positive hypothesis.

The hypotheses are very clearly established in the text of the paper and the revisions have not changed them. So why did I eventually write a preface to set out the hypotheses of the paper? I came to the conclusion that there were some people who would not spend the time needed to really be able to work out the point of the paper, and perhaps there are a few who would not get it even if they took the time. Eventually I thought on balance that the paper might be more effective if I was a bit less subtle.

'As I have already pointed out, countless people have made the case that flight 77 did hit the Pentagon and it has not had as much impact as one would expect - people keep arguing against it'

countless people? Mostly Jim Hoffman and his crowd...Theres no video footage showing flight 77 hitting the pengtagon, just conjecture that it did.Countless people have noticed the anomalies that suggest it didnt. .,SO whos right? We wont know until video footage is released.

"irritating to see others say that it absolutely did hit" - this is an example of a 'strawman argument', i.e. misrepresenting a debate opponent's position in order to avoid addressing their argument and attack a different one.

I don't claim i know for sure that AA 77 hit; i point out the evidence that it did, and point out the problems with the '757 didn't hit' claims.

Dr. Legge did not claim in his paper that there's proof positive AA 77 hit the Pentagon; Legge's thesis is that it has not been proven it did NOT hit, and that claim can't be proven with the evidence so far available- if it's even true that it didn't.

Did I say you did? There are people on here who spend time trying to convince us that it did hit, and based on nothing. We need the films or the plane. We don't have either. So there is nothing definitive.

Legge: "It should have been well defended. American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757, was the third plane hijacked that day, so there was ample time to confirm that information
received was about real hijackings, not parts of war games, and not accidents. There was ample time to send up fighters to intercept, as is the normal procedure." (2)

Just to be clear, whether there could or should have been fighters over DC does not depend on notice having been received about AA77. The DC Air National Guard, which prior to 9/11 was tasked with defending the nation's capital, and could/should have been scrambled to provide CAP over DC, immediately after WTC 1 was hit. http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm 9/11 happened after a 'summer of threat' which included intelligence on Al Qaeda's US plot, plus warnings from at least 11 nations, including info on Al Qaeda 'planes as missiles' plots. Around 9:15 am Garvey allegedly said as many as 11 planes may have been hijacked. However, DCANG wasn't scrambled even when it was believed 93 was hijacked and heading to DC; The Commission Report says they were not "airborne" until 10:38 am (44). The Commission report says the NMCC was informed about UA93's hijacking at 10:03 am, but doesn't say what, if anything, they did with the info. (42)

NOTHING should have hit the Pentagon; that anything did, and that it took so long for DCANG to get planes in the air is evidence the air defense system was obstructed. The way the Commission and the military reported on the failure to defend is evidence of a cover up.

The Commission claims notice about AA 77 wasn't received until a minute or so before the Pentagon was hit, that Mineta was in error about the time he arrived, and the plane being referred to was actually the 'ghost' track of UA 93. However, there are a number of problems with the Commission's version of events, and evidence indicates certain people were aware of a plane approaching DC well before the Pentagon was hit. http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelin...

...the military has had to create three different stories and timelines to explain away WHY...their primary air defense facility...NEADS...[check these words out]...

North...East...Air...Defense...Sector...in which were:

... ALL the airliners...
...and ALL the targets...
...the world's largest city which had already been the target of terrorist acts...
...the center for US political power...
...a five sided building that spends more money on guns than the entire rest of the world's countries combined...
...and WAY MORE THAN ENOUGH military aviation assets to mount a defense of the NORTH EAST AIR [space]...

...didn't do their jobs?

Loose Nuke offers an irrefuttable perspective about this...and its something that has yet to be articulated from us to the public in easy and clear terms. I ask each every one of you out there...If YOU were in charge of NEADS on the morning of 9/11/2001...and it was YOUR job to defend the northeast airspace from attack...and you were asked at 08:38 to scramble some military interceptor assests and soon you knew that there were two attacks on the WTCs, would YOU leave WDC unprotected?

Ask any citizen who can read at a sixth grade level the same question...and its a DUHHH!

Nope, I would have scrambled everything that had a pilot and fuel to make it fly...

The evidence, the facts, the theories, the eyewitness testimonies will continue to come out and we will learn a lot more about the debris pile and the damage at the Pentagon.

However...NOTHING...should have happened at the Pentagon.

And if Honegger's evidence about the first explosion at 09:30-32 is as solid as it seems to be, this will prove that the Pentagon's scenario was DEFINITELY an inside job that was well planned ahead of time.

And if that's the case, then the HI PERPS would also be in position to, and have the responsibility to "spin the crap" out af all information found, presented, or allowed to be released in order to shape both public perceptions about the AA77-Pentagon issue, AND...to make sure that the inevitable "questioners" would be headed off into directions that were the best at obfuscatiing the truth. If they bombed their own building, the HI PERPS needed several very interesting cover stories to hide these truths.

And they have periodically dished them out from the get-go...

At the Pentagon and with AA77, we do not have WTC DUST and fantastic scientists to study and analyze the dust to tell the WTC story.

And although the damage to the generator and low cement wall to the left of it will eventually identify the airvehicle that hit the Pentagon [IF one indeed did so], it still remains the most freely and independently collected evidence that is telltale to the airvehicle type.

The genertaor is some more of our "WTC DUST" at the Pentagon.

Anyway, I ask that Truthers really hear what Loose Nuke is saying here. In ZERO, I was careful to show how bad it would be if the local fire department had to call the mayor [Pentagon] before the fire trucks [interceptors] were sent out to fight a fire [airliners]. This analogy was used to be able to reach the understanding of an average citizen...and I think that it does so.

Loose Nuke has done the same in his reminders to all of us. The fire station didn't respond for some unprovable reasons on 9/11....and the trucks didn't make it to the fires in time...and as we see all throughout the communications scenarios...the calls [fire alarms] were unheeded in one way or another until it was too late [the house had burned to the ground].

This sets the stage to establish that there was a "stand-down", or more likely, several well disguised "stand downs" of our national air defense systems.

This is simple enough to make the point that NOTHING should have happened at the Pentagon.

Its game-set-match...NORAD and the Pentagon loose out on this one.

A reminder: NEADS...

N orth
E ast
A ir
D efense
S ector

The HI PERPS just cannot explain away Loose Nuke's [and Dean Jackson's, and of course my own] positions on this very obvious TRUTH!.

Perhaps this is why we keep on getting little tidbits of misinformation from the HI PERPS that sends us scurrying all around.

[CIT's eyewitness discoveries are NOT in the tidbit category of misinformation...they too are some of the Pentagon's "DUST"...and simply cannot be discarded...nor be used to form any solid conclusions yet...its too soon.]

we don't know the truth. The truth is that the official story has not been proven. If a 757 did hit the pentagon then where's the proof? It's been eight years why have we not been shown proof of the official story? The official story can't be true because of the five fab frames. If a 757 hit the pentagon then why did it explode before it hit the pentagon or are the five fab frames not true? Either way the official story is still not true. Some folks think that speculation can hurt the movement, not if we call it speculation and even if we don't. If someone hears that no planes hit the twin towers and decides to do some research and decides that is wrong, then what about bldg 7, what about free fall collapse, what about molten steel? Unless they are biased we are still ahead on points. Some folks think that science can save us, but science didn't stop the single bullet theory or where the fatal bullet was fired from. Eye witnesses and even MSM reports didn't get the truth out in Oklahoma, or Waco, or regarding weapons of mass destruction. No in the end only a mass wake up can get the job done. The bad news is time is not on our side. Not many people believe the Warren Report anymore, the government admits the Gulf of Tonkin never happened, so what gets done ? Nothing. The internet has given us a great chance this time but before we get to critical mass the perps will try to strike again because they have everything and nothing to lose. That leaves the good people on the inside to save our skins. Like when those nuclear weapons were shipped across the country not long ago, score one for the guys in the white hats. Heaven help us all. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Sometimes the truth hurts.

I am in TOTAL disagreement with anyone who thinks that because we have differeng concepts or groups of evidence that support a few fairly logical "scenarios" about what happened at the Pentagon, we are thusly unreliable.

We ARE reliable...and in more ways than what is unfolding about the WTCs.

The fact is that the AA77-Pentagon-Cheney multi-theory issues are mostly dependent upon information provided to us by the HI PERPS!

...A FDR and animation...
...RADES radar data from the military's 84th RADES Divison...
...The FAB FIVE FRAMES...
...The Cheney-Mineta dialogue [which I have a differing possible interpretation of BTW...]
...Evidence collected at the Pentagon that has no "trail of possesion"...
...The Pentagon Building Performance Analysis [I think that's the formal name]...
...NORAD testimony that has THREE versions of lying...
...Witheld FAA tapes...

So, I make this point:

ANYONE...who thinks that they have "the answer" about what happened at the Pentagon and with AA77 is using evidentiary standards that are NOT the metal of the typical 9/11 Truther...such as the Gage-Ryan-Jones Gang at the WTCs.

I feel TERRIFFIC that we have developed this many ideas and concepts and evidence...it means that we are still doing our jobs...and further...

This means that we are making it more and more obvious that the HI PERPS are witholding information and evidence surrounding AA77 and the Pentagon.

This is a GOOD THING because we want a REAL investigation to get at what really happened on 9/11...and we have many, many GREAT questions should a new investigation happen.

Why cannot Truthers see that we are all reacting based upon information that we suspect is not accurate...and thusly...how the hell can anyone KNOW what happened at the Pentagon?

We do not need consensus about what happened at the Pentagon...in fact, we probably need MORE concepts and theories...BECAUSE...

...the HI PERPS have held back MORE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE surrounding the Pentagon than elsewhere in the events of 9/11...OR...have deliberately planted bad info to steer us...to wherever they WANT us to head.

Anyway...Dr. Legge has titled his paper wrongly...and we need to continue to think outside the box.

In the end, the final AA77-Pentagon-NORAD-SS-Cheney story will undoubtedly include parts of ALL of the research that the 9/11TM has developed so far surrounding these subjects.

BTW...I'm still not sure that an airvehicle hit the Pentagon...but if it did...here is the way to identify it:

Measure the distances between:

...the damage to the lower cement wall to the left of the generator and the top left corner of the generator when it was in its original location...

...the damage to the left top corner of the generator and the streaked damage to the right side top of the generator when the generator was in its original position...

[this damage could come from a wing flap track OR an underwing armament or fuel tank mount on a military airvehicle...the alleged left bank plays a BIG role in this situation...]

[Note: I am presuming that the calculations will contain adjustments based upon the angle of approach to the generator...]

And one will get:

1. The distances between the underwing engines...and

2. The distances between the underwing engines and the underwing flap track or underwing armament/fuel tank mount...and

Then compare these distances to all civilian airvehicles...AND...all military airvehicles.

These distances will match only one or two specific airvehicles.

The generator is telling us the identity of the airvehicle IF there was one...

In conclusion:

What some think is a problem with these differing theories...I THINK is a sign of our health!

Its too soon to conclude...we have much more evidence to collect...from a variety of perspectives and evidenciary leads...

And this includes Barbara Honegger's work about the first explosion times at the Pentagon at 09:30 or 32.

'In the 9/11 truth movement, CIT’s work has been controversial. They are banned from posting on the largest 9/11 truth forum, 911blogger. Recent threads demonstrate that 911blogger has a pronounced preference for the “yes, a plane hit the Pentagon” version of events, with frequent anonymous contributors vehemently defending that point of view. 'http://www.sheilacasey.com/2009/07/researchers-release-911-pentagon-atta...

"A stellar deconstruction of the official story. If four independent witnesses are positive the plane approached from the north side, then why were the famous light poles downed on the south side? If there was virtually no Boeing wreckage found, did pyrotechnics/explosives create the "attack"? Where did the plane go when the flames took over? A must-see and MUST THINK!"

These two pictures merit follow-up, imho. (click to go to Photobucket store if they don't appear completely)

You should be able to do some computations based on the hypothesis that the round imprint was caused by a plane engine. You could, for example, compute the angle of impact with some trigonometry.

The question then of course remains: if that is an engine imprint, then where is the engine? I don't know, and neither do I know where the tail, the fuselage, the wheels and the wings went. What people tend to ignore, however, is that the Pentagon was built (and reinforced) so that it would withstand such crashes. This means the damage to the plane would be far greater than the damage to the facade. It could be that there wasn't much left of the engine to be recognized.

P.S.: In my opinion the only remaining question is whether or not the 757 impacted with the angle described in the Pentagon Building Performance Report.

CIT's only real flyover witness is Roosevelt Roberts, who describes a commercial airplane, but he describes it flying away from the Pentagon to the south west. A flyover in that direction would be ludicrous (everybody would see it), and furthermore, I wonder if any commercial boeing aircraft can perform such a U-turn at all within such a short time and at that speed and altitude.

P.P.S: The most likely event that could have moved the generator towards the Pentagon is a plane impact. Not a missile, and certainly not a sole bomb. (A bomb with the ability to 'pull' generators perhaps ;-)

The site data indicate that the aircraft fuselage impacted the building at column line 14 at an angle of approximately 42 degrees to the normal to the face of the building, at or slightly below the second-story slab.

This calculation is sloppy, so please feel free to jump in for corrections. So far, it shows that using the supposed engine imprint as a marker proves that a 757 hit the Pentagon at the approximate angle claimed by the official narrative. However, that does mean I disagree with ASCE about the bank and the height.

Note: I think that the bank could distort this calculation.

I hope this calculation arouses your curiosity. (And I hope I didn't make a total ass out of myself with bad math ;-)

Asin (3,25 / 10) gives an angle of 18,97 degrees to normal. This would place the 757 on a steep south trajectory. I find that hard to believe.

Another interesting observation: if the distance between column 15 and 18 is about 10 meters, then one could estimate the distance between column 18 and 19 to be about 10/3 = 3.33 meter. This is close to the Dewdney's data. From the scale drawing, I find the engine diameter to be 2.5 m. Therefore, a 757 engine fits in this hole.

I ignored any bank, since it seemed that the correction to the result would be negligible. However, I'm not sure of this.

Conclusion: if one really wants to accept that the round imprint is from a 757 engine (personally, I do), then either the calculation or the source data is incorrect, or the plane engine was ripped off due to the impact with the generator. However, a 757 engine does fit the diameter of the round imprint. Furthermore, the imprint is more pronounced in the left edge, indicating impact of an object moving from south west to north east. (right-to-left facing the Pentagon facade)

For reference: some pictures:

Close-up of the imprint

Engine disc outside the Pentagon

I hope more people will investigate this round imprint. I also think the generator could provide information about the impact angle, using the gash presumably left by the flap track.

...an engine remnant was right in front of your nose. Did you see the small round puncture in the middle of the imprint? Can you correlate that to the deformed cone in the engine disc? I can.

I understand skepticism, but I don't understand selective blindness.

BTW: referring to 'vaporization' is a straw man argument in the same way that opponents of explosive demolition research say that we think the fires melted the steel. Vaporization would occur if the heat generated by the impact and the jet fuel explosion exceeds that of the boiling point of the various components of the 757, such as aluminum. I haven't tried to calculate it (I'm not sure I'd even know how exactly) but I don't think it's that relevant, because I think much of the plane deformed to confetti, and the rest was inside the building. (And near the exit holes)

...made TWO lengthy damage streaks atop the generator IF the attached diagram is accurate. And in the diagram noted in this post, niether of the wing flap track supports would have made the actual damage seen atop the generator.

And, if there was only ONE of the B757 wing flap track supports to have struck the generator, it would have been the one closest to the engine because it would be closer to the ground due to the dyhedral of the wing [the wingtip being higher than the wing root]. And this would be even more exagerated IF the airvehicle was in a left bank. But I am not sure where such "left bank" information came from in the first place.

The diagram shows that the OUTER wing flap track support is the closest to the damage atop the generator...yet it is still not matched up well enough to be conclusive of a B757..

Also, in this diagram, where is the low cement wall and the damage that was inflicted upon it?

I think that this is one of the keyes to airvehicle identification.

In analyzing the observed damage to the low cement wall, the left top of the generator, and the right-central top of the generator, I would first suspect an airvehicle that had only ONE flap track support...OR...perhaps ONE under wing fuel tank or armament support.

I do find this report to be interesting, but perhaps in need of a solid update as they plug in some new information...like the damage to the low cement wall etc.

A note:

If the attack on the Pentagon was a well designed plan, then one MUST conclude that the military assets that were used to enact the event would be made or modified...

...SPECIFICALLY to serve that purpose!

Certainly the Pentagon has the funds...the physical capabilities...the secretive compartmentalization to keep all of this well hidden...and obviously, several profiteering war fronts to become engaged in as a motivator. PLUS...these military types LOVE to "dream-up, build and eventually test out" military assests, strategies and concepts such as I note above.

Much is known of:

... Dov Zakhim's [sp] role in remotely controlled airvehicles...

...the military's capabilities to remotely control airvehicles with deadly ACCURACY for decades as noted now by all the drone flights in our latest war fronts in Afghanistan and Pakistan...

[Although Truthers are yet to get their arms fully around the "specialness" of the pilot of the original flight that is "swapped out". Its THAT pilot [Burlingame?] that has to be a trusted insider in order to CLANDESTINLY take the original aircraft somewhere safe and secure for a landing [I presume.]..

I feel strongly about a "swap scenario" and have some credible supportive evidence of the time, the opportunity and the potential of such an "airvehicle swap" because:

...AA77 was lost to positive radar identification and nobody anywhere at any time at any facility ever positively radar re-identified any target anywhere as being AA77...[only the evidence? at the Pentagon is being used to make such "identification claims"...]

...of the "appearance" of a high speed primary target that "popped up" over a desolate area in West Virginia in between two Appalachian Mountain ridges and continued on in to the Pentagon after a minimum of eight minutes...or...100-150 miles...where NO primary targets were seen between eastern Ohio and central West Virginia...

...of a different interpretaion of the Cheney-Mineta dialogue down in the PEOC with it actually being a dialogue designed to COVER that fact that it was a military airvehicle that penetrated WDC airspace WITHOUT triggereing the missle defense systems...

...the interesting coincidence that the floor of the radar coverage over central WV is between 7000 and 9000 feet...and

...the altitude of the airvehicle when it began its descending right spiral as it approached the Pentagon was reportedly 7000 feet...

...the "swapped in" airvehicle is the one that would be remotely controlled...and it could easily be loaded with explosives or whatever evidence might be needed to establish whatever storylines the HI PERPS wanted to be established...

[sans the DNA which would come from the end of the "swapped out" AA77's clandestine and "fatal to the passenger's" destination]

...and it would be a very simple task to position this "swapped in" airvehicle over the sparsely populated and remote regions of central WV in order to "replace" the missing AA77...

In conclusion:

If I were creating the "9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario", part of which is the modernized Operation Northwoods, to create a "convenient, purposeful and efficient" attack at the Pentagon in a location that was lacking human beings but FULL of data and a group of personnel who all were engaged in the exposure of problematic financial histories exposing potential military funding fraud, I would create a geographical location:

...where my "swapped out" airliner would be flown by a trusted agent...Burlingame...

...where I would have a military airvehicle that would be "swapped in" circling at the reday for a "swap in" in a geographical location where it would hardly be noticed by people on the ground...AND

...where it would also be BELOW radar coverage...

...and this "swapped in" airvehicle would have had its wingspan extended...

...and a sophisticated remote control capability...

...and enough room on board for whatever cargo is required to establish the story that I wanted told...

...and it would be painted like an American Airliner...possibly with passengers show in painted windows...

...and i would have a team of agents ready to pick up all the tiny parts as soon at the event happened at the Pentagon...

...and then I'd have the lawn covered with eartyen aggrgate as soon as possible to bury any and all even tinier parts of the airvehicle...

[Imagine if they let some Truthers on the Pentagon lawn with some hand-held metal detectors...now THAT would be interesting aye?]

And I'm not even a nutty militaristic War Games or War Toys psycho planner...but this how I'd set it all up!

More on a painted "swapped in" airvehicle:

I ask for a refreshed review and hopefully a better analysis of the picture of the twisted piece of fuselage of an American Airliner? that we all have seen on the Pentagon's lawn...and here is the clue:

The silvery "sheen" seen on the fuselages on American airliners comes from the aluminum "outer skin" being polished and NOT painted in a sivery color. From what I see of the above noted fuselage part, the "silvery" portion of the fuselge is PAINTED into a silvery coloring...and is NOT of a polished aluminum nature.

Another little note supporting this "painted like an American airliner" possibility is that there are some eyewitnesses that claim to have "seen passengers" inside the airvehicle through the windows. This just makes no sense to me as its dark inside the airliners, there were FEW passengers on board AA77 to begin with, and pasenger's heads, even if the passengers were sitting in a window seat, would be 18-20 inches inside the window. The only way that passengers could be seen inside the airliner iis IF it were more well lit inside the airliner than it was bright outside the airvehicle. Maybe the passengers' heads were painted on the outside of the airvehicle along with the other painted schemes to make it look like Burlingame's flight...AA77. Does anyone have the records of theis eyewitness and is the testimony valid?

Here is my best guess about thet type of airvehicle that struck...or blew up just before hitting...the Pentagon [IF an airvehicle actually hit the Pentagon at all]:

...its a fair sized twin engined airvehicle with under wing engines that do not extend too far below the wings or fuselage...and

...this airvehicle does not have wing flap track supports [of which there almost always has to be two or more]...but instead

...this airvehicle has ONE underwing fuel tank, or more likely, armament supports that are designed to extend quite LOW under the wing so that arming crews can easily reach the armament support from the ground as they reload...

Just my best guess at the moment.

Keep up the great work Truthers...and kep outside the HI PERP's "thought boxes"...

thanks for taking the time to respond. About the diagram, I borrowed it from Jean-Pierre Desmoulins. His analysis seems flawed here and there, but I appreciate him taking a stab at creating this diagram. I've had a very difficult time getting my hands on drawings with dimensions. In fact, it seems hard to get the hard data required for these calculations at all.

About the flap tracks...considering all these diagrams are an approximation (note how the impact angle deviates from the PBPR also) it's hard to derive and definitive conclusions from it. However, it does show (to me at least) that the official Pentagon impact scenario is much more likely than I had previously anticipated.

BTW: I think one of Hoffman's problems is that it's impossible for him to present the entire (gigantic) volume of evidence contained in his website (maintained by Gregg Roberts, btw, thank you Gregg) in a concise form. I wish Jim and Victoria would spend less time dealing with personalities in the 9/11 truth movement because the hard data presented on their website is more important and more convincing, imho. In fact, my position of relative neutrality in the Pentagon discussion has helped me look past the petty squabbling from both sides (disinfo this, bad for the movement that) and directly at the facts. What a breath of fresh air that is!

As for plane swapping, if ever such a Northwoods scenario would have been carried out, flight AA 77 would be the most likely candidate, considering the loss of its transponder signal. All this doesn't take anything away from the fact that several witnesses (including CIT's) say they saw an American Airlines commercial airplane at the scene, so... if this Northwoods hypothesis must hold, the plane had to have been made to look exactly like AA 77. You allude to this in your response. So far it's mostly speculation though.

Here's something interesting I ran across while skimming through a document referred to by Hoffman (but the link on his site is incorrect, so I had to track it down)

Interesting, isn't it? This puts the PEOC/Cheney/Mineta issue further into context. If the discussion Mineta overheard indeed concerns the plane inbound for the Pentagon, then this suggests that this was later deliberately confused with the flight 93 inbound warning of which the personnel outside the Pentagon was actually informed.

Whatever the case was, nothing should have hit the Pentagon. The entire command structure was AWOL... and even if it was 'incompetence', it would be incompetence of the severest, punishable kind. Where are the reprimands? Why did all the incompetent, AWOL a-holes get promotion?

ETA: (You gotta love Ray)

"So who cares that the 9/11 Commission chose to believe that Dick Cheney did not enter the White House bunker until 'shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58,' twenty minutes after the strike on the Pentagon? Surely the vice president would not fib, so the Commission threw out the testimony of several eyewitnesses, including Norman Mineta, the transportation secretary. Mineta must have been making it all up when he testified that he joined Cheney in the bunker at about 9:20 and heard Cheney reaffirm an apparent stand-down order just before the Pentagon was struck. Such conflicting testimony is typical of the many serious '9/11 Contradictions' documented in David Ray Griffin's highly readable book. We need a truly independent investigation to put Cheney and Mineta under oath, along with the still unidentified 'young man' who, Mineta reported, kept coming into the bunker and, after telling Cheney 'the plane is ten miles out,' asked him whether 'the orders still stand'--about 12 minutes before 125 people in the Pentagon were killed. What were those orders?"

I am trying to make the point that there needs to be a refreshed look at all the evidence and reports surrounding the events at the Pentagon and AA77...however possible. If the diagram above is the best we have we need to redo it more accurately. The generator is telling us something very, very accurately...we need to match that evidence with our calculations etc. And, the damage to the low cement wall is a key here.

Also, regarding the rounded imprint noted in a photo above, the rounded hole that you suspect was made by an engine...is not that damage WAY TOO HIGH on the facade of the Pentagon to match the location of the engine...which I THINK? was just above the ground level. Perhaps I'm wrong here but that circular imprint is near the second floor is it not?

Anyway, Dr. legge's threads are beginning to draw out some past reports and research...and this is a good thing...a good place to "back-up" from...and relook at some evidence.

Its just seems to me that the one thing that most researchers have depended upon...and started to create their final conclusions from...is the Building Performmance Report...most noteably that it sems to establish the angle of penetration of the airvehicle...if there was one.

It also seems to me that with all of the columns and the like, they could have collectively deflected the penetrating masses of an airvehicle quite a few degrees. If so, then might a north course penetraion have inflicted the damage? Or, as an earlier blogger has noted...he states that he can show how a last minute turn from the north course could have done the damage as shown by the PBPR and perhaps even the light poles.

And the three exit holes???...and the eerily perfectly round exit hole in the "C" ring???

I just think that we need to spend some time in reverse gear and back out of this narrowed research alleyway that we are currently parked within.

I am sorry to have to say that but the thing gave me a headache--always a sign to me, of over-intellectualized BS.
The hypothesis is that there is no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon? What kind of crap is that? There is no proof that the Easter Bunny did not appear here in my office this evening. So what?
Many of us have cranked this event around in our heads so many times that good old common sense has been displaced by gobbledygook. I am a long-time pilot and student of dozens of aviation accidents large and small. This isn't rocket science folks. Even though there is no proof, the Easter Bunny did not appear in my office, and no 757 aircraft crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/01.
There---Wasn't that easy?
The "debris" in the photos is a joke. I don't know where it came from but it certainly is not from an aircraft that hit solid concrete at 500 mph. Those small chunks are perfectly consistent with the use of an explosive warhead designed to penetrate concrete walls. Upon detonation, the wall structure is broken into small chunks and scattered back from the impact site. Such a warhead could easily carry through multiple walls, leaving the exact signature of a small hole, as observed.
Now, let's sober-up here for a few minutes. We all know what the site of an airliner crash looks like. If you do not, just spend a few minutes over at YouTube and educate yourself. The Pentagon shows not one single sign of a "typical" airliner crash site. No engines, no blood, no seats, no luggage, no landing gear, no tires, no wing spars, no FDR, no partial carcasses still strapped into their seats, why go on? The nose of a 757 might look like the tip of a missile, but it is made up(please bear with me here if you already know this), of very thin, fragile composites just strong enough to keep the rain off of the radar antenna in there. That nose piece can't penetrate solid concrete--I don't care how fast it is moving.
But enough already. I don't need "proof" that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. The government needs to produce proof that it did.

"There is no proof that the Easter Bunny did not appear here in my office this evening. So what?"

If many witnesses saw the Easter Bunny approach your office and physical evidence suggests he was there (Easter Eggs, bunny droppings), then a hypothesis suggesting that the Easter Bunny wasn't in your office based on witnesses who saw him take a different route to your office and one witness who says he saw an Easter Bunny make an impossible turn to the South West of your office, isn't conclusive. Therefore, considering all the evidence, there is no proof the Easter Bunny wasn't in your office.

Quote: "The minor hypothesis of the paper is that there is no scientific proof that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. "
That is the basis of my problem with the paper. There can certainly be proof that an event did occur, but here we have Frank Legge's quote from the paper concerning his "minor hypothesis"--(whatever the hell that is) which is a totally unscientific double-negative. And the rambling about debris sliding somewhere among the columns. It's junk--sorry, but I didn't write it. His motive to maintain the credibility of the movement is fine but this paper isn't helping.

but apparently you missed my point. The point is that one part of the negative "no plane hit the Pentagon" is not Frank's but CIT's. There is no proof for that, so we end up with the correct statement: "There is no proof a 757 did not hit the Pentagon". Which is statement of denial of CIT's hypothesis.

In anticipation of your reply to the above, consider these questions:
(1) How was the generator moved towards the Pentagon? What kind of bomb pulls generators?
(2) What caused the gash in the generator? The bomb?
(3) What caused the round imprint in the facade slightly larger than a 757 engine?
(4) What caused the hull impact hole?
(5) How is a u-turn to the south west compatible with a flyover?
(6) How were the exit holes accomplished? All with wall breaching kits? Did those kits include some kind of mechanism to spray all kinds of random plane debris and passenger DNA outwards?
(7) Why does CIT dismiss all evidence supposedly under the godlike real-time manipulatory force of the government yet they accept the PBPR at face value?
(8) Who or what caused the other two exit holes?

Guess what the circles mean (You can right-click to open the large version in a new tab or so)

I know many people who say no plane hit the Pentagon. Many of those people gravitate positively towards 9/11 truth. Yet they all have one thing in common: they didn't study the subject matter diligently enough, but have an assertiveness about them that rivals that of debunkers. The whole Pentagon cul-de-sac stems from the fact that the Pentagon has an absolutely unbelievably strong structure, and the section hit was reinforced on top of that. The result: an impact which does not look like a normal impact.

And then...the speculation began, and the perpetrators sat back with a sadistic grin, knowing full well that excessive secrecy and lack of information divides.... and conquers. I'm interested in CIT's work because of the information about the flight path. NOT about flyover, which becomes increasingly absurd when you actually attempt to REALLY explain how this was REALLY all accomplished.

Boeing 757's are made of 100 tons of metals, plastics, glass, etc. What happened to those 100 tons? Please don't say it was vaporized. Even if you believe that the Pentagon has "an absolutely unbelievably strong structure" and that therefore the plane was shredded into small pieces, surely you agree that at least the engines and tail section pieces would still be recognizeable on the front lawn, alongside the tons of shredded/smashed debris? Yet there is nothing that even remotely resembles such a scenario. Come on. At least admit that it LOOKS fishy, no?

Your question, "Did those kits include some kind of mechanism to spray all kinds of random plane debris and passenger DNA outwards?" is a logical fallacy in that it begs the question - why to you presume the government's claim about the DNA to be automatically true?

I don't see 100 tons of debris at the WTC. What happened to those 100 tons? Please don't say it was vaporized.

I don't "believe" "an absolutely unbelievably strong structure". I study. I read. I inform myself. Then I make statements.

Of course it looks fishy. For the longest time I thought a missile and later a Global Hawk had hit the Pentagon. Stupid me, I was gullible and didn't do my homework.

Where are those large tail sections from flight UA 175 and AA 11?

For my reference to the DNA evidence to be fallacy of circular logic, you should provide direct evidence the DNA was faked. I am open to that possibility, but not on the indirect basis of a deviating flight path. A whistleblower involved with the forensics would be a good start.

You can tell, both by the publicly sourced videos showing the planes going completely into the towers, and by the post crash pictures of the punch out holes, that the planes sliced completely through the tower's outer walls. It is obvious that that was not the case at the Pentagon. Additionally, the towers were blown up and destroyed, so no examination of the plane debris could take place. It is obvious that that was not the case at the Pentagon.

"For my reference to the DNA evidence to be fallacy of circular logic, you should provide direct evidence the DNA was faked."

No. That is not how logic works. It is not up to me to prove that the DNA evidence was faked. It IS your burden to prove the truthfulness of the DNA claims, especially since the source of the claim - the US Government - has been found to be so lacking in credibility and truthfullness. Do you think it is logical at this point to have an a priori presumption of truth for any claims about 9/11 by the main suspect of 9/11?

Yes, while the WTC structures and their facade were an incredibly dense mesh of steel, they weren't as resilient and impact resistant as the Pentagon facade. The end result is that more of the plane enters the building. You assume incorrectly, however, that whatever is not entering the building must therefore be recognizable outside the building. This shows you underestimate what happens to an object with such enormous kinetic energy in an inelastic collision. The energy is converted to heat, sound and deformation. A cloud of plane confetti rained down in both impacts on both sides.

In the case of the Pentagon, what wasn't entering the building was largely reduced to confetti. This confetti was sprayed all over the Pentagon lawn but not well visible in the many photographs. There was lots of debris inside, but you choose to ignore that, because you afford yourself the luxury of dismissing all evidence that doesn't suit your conclusion out-of-hand. Strangely, you don't do this with government tied sources such as Brooks, Lagasse and the PBPR. This sort of cherry-picking is opportunistic and illogical.

"No. That is not how logic works. It is not up to me to prove that the DNA evidence was faked. It IS your burden to prove the truthfulness of the DNA claims, especially since the source of the claim - the US Government - has been found to be so lacking in credibility and truthfullness."

Yes it has. That's why I am open to the suggestion, like I said earlier, that the DNA was 'faked' or simply 'invented'. But not on the basis of a bare assertion. By the way, I know how logic works. It's my metier.

"Do you think it is logical at this point to have an a priori presumption of truth for any claims about 9/11 by the main suspect of 9/11?"

First of all, CIT extended the notion of "suspect" to include ALL PEOPLE who report things they disagree with. (Yet they make exceptions for e.g. the PBPR, Brooks and Lagasse.) Second of all, while I understand the scepsis, it has no function when it's based on bare assertions. You or CIT talking to people who actually saw the body parts of plane passengers and the forensic investigators might change that. I regret that CIT didn't follow-up on their investigation by looking into the physical evidence. After all, if their premise is correct, they should find it confirmed.

You assume incorrectly, however, that whatever is not entering the building must therefore be recognizable outside the building. This shows you underestimate what happens to an object with such enormous kinetic energy in an inelastic collision. The energy is converted to heat, sound and deformation. A cloud of plane confetti rained down in both impacts on both sides.

I've seen too many crash photos of dozens of airliner crashes to just make wild assumptions. I have never seen photos of an airliner crash in which all of the plane was converted to unrecognizable confetti. In the case of the Pentagon, it is clear that If a 757 crashed there, it did not slice through the building cleanly. The engines would have to have been burrowing in the ground for the plane to have entered the building in the first floor, and the engines would have been left outside. The portions of the plane that did not enter the building would have had to decelerate and/or bounce off the outer wall. It is not reasonable to assume that even the tail section which was the farthest away from the initial impact and had time to decelerate would have been converted to confetti. Sorry, I'm not buying it. There are too many examples of airliner crashes into the sides of mountains and buildings, etc., in which most parts were still recognizable and accounted for. Based on this history of plane crashes, I'd say it is you who is engaging in pure speculation that all of the plane was converted to confetti.

In the case of the Pentagon, what wasn't entering the building was largely reduced to confetti. This confetti was sprayed all over the Pentagon lawn but not well visible in the many photographs.

Really? If it wasn't visible in the many photographs, then on what basis are you making this claim?

There was lots of debris inside, but you choose to ignore that, because you afford yourself the luxury of dismissing all evidence that doesn't suit your conclusion out-of-hand.

Your baseless accusation that I dismiss all evidence out-of-hand is a bald assertion and I don't appreciate it.

Have you positively identified any of the "debris" inside as plane debris? How? What is your expertise that makes you qualified to identify such? What is the source of the photos? What is the chain of custody? Sorry, but from all the photos I've seen regarding the Pentagon "crash", none of the photos, in whole or in part, has come even close to accounting for a significant fraction of the 100 tons of a Boeing 757.

Strangely, you don't do this with government tied sources such as Brooks, Lagasse and the PBPR. This sort of cherry-picking is opportunistic and illogical.

What are you talking about? Brooks and Lagasse are not spokespersons for the government. They clearly gave testimony that contradicted the official government line, while assuming that their testimony was in agreement with the official story. When they discovered the implications of their NOC testimony, they stopped being willing to talk. Besides, their testimony was confirmed by at least 11 other witnesses, INDEPENDENTLY, most of whom were civilian non-government people. i'm not cherry-picking anything. Your contention that Brooks and Lagasse should be automatically dismissed is illogical.

That's why I am open to the suggestion, like I said earlier, that the DNA was 'faked' or simply 'invented'. But not on the basis of a bare assertion. By the way, I know how logic works. It's my metier.

If you know how logic works, then why are you not understanding that the burden of proof is on those who make a claim, not on those who don't accept an unproven claim. I'm not saying that the DNA was faked on the basis of a bare assertion. I'm saying that THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PROVEN ITS CLAIM ABOUT THE DNA, RATHER, IT IS JUST A BARE ASSERTION BY A PARTY WHO IS THE MAIN SUSPECT OF THE CRIME AND HAVE SHOWN THEMSELVES TO BE NOT CREDIBLE OR HONEST. i do not have to prove the DNA was faked. You have to prove that it was factual, otherwise I do not have to accept the truth of the government's DNA claim. Comprendo?

First of all, CIT extended the notion of "suspect" to include ALL PEOPLE who report things they disagree with. (Yet they make exceptions for e.g. the PBPR, Brooks and Lagasse.) Second of all, while I understand the scepsis, it has no function when it's based on bare assertions.

Evasion and diversion. First of all you avoided the question. The question is, why would you have an a priori presumption of truth for any claims by the main suspect of the 9/11 crime - the US government?

Second of all, please back up your bare assertion that "CIT extended the notion of "suspect" to include all people who report things they disagree with."

You or CIT talking to people who actually saw the body parts of plane passengers and the forensic investigators might change that. I regret that CIT didn't follow-up on their investigation by looking into the physical evidence. After all, if their premise is correct, they should find it confirmed.

Hmmm. How can there be recognizable body parts of plane passengers when the entire plane was reduced to confetti? You can't have it both ways. And who are these people? You mean people like John Judge, whose bullshit story about the super hero flight attendant recognizing the arm of her friend in the rubble is riddled with so much demonstrably absurd nonsense that he has completely discredited himself as a BS artist?

If you assert that CIT didn't look into the physical evidence then you are not very familiar with CIT's work and should educate yourself more about their research before continuing to make such uninformed statements. You apparently missed the parts in their videos and on their web site where they examine the photographs of the Pentagon and discuss how it was impossible for the 757 to have crashed within the first floor without damaging the foundation, as one example. There are many more examples of their discussion of the physical evidenece that you can find if you bother to actually become more familiar with their work.

"I've seen too many crash photos of dozens of airliner crashes to just make wild assumptions. I have never seen photos of an airliner crash in which all of the plane was converted to unrecognizable confetti."

In the case of the Pentagon, it is clear that If a 757 crashed there, it did not slice through the building cleanly.

Obviously.

The engines would have to have been burrowing in the ground for the plane to have entered the building in the first floor, and the engines would have been left outside. The portions of the plane that did not enter the building would have had to decelerate and/or bounce off the outer wall. It is not reasonable to assume that even the tail section which was the farthest away from the initial impact and had time to decelerate would have been converted to confetti. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

If you accept the PBPR without question, and if you don't appreciate the effects of inelastic collisions with the amount of kinetic energy available. See the links above.

Really? If it wasn't visible in the many photographs, then on what basis are you making this claim?

Because there are other (rare) photographs that show more. Below are a few. There are more. Diligent researchers know about them. You, apparently, don't.

+ witness statements. I've done my homework, I'm not copying it all for you. Now you do yours.

Your baseless accusation that I dismiss all evidence out-of-hand is a bald assertion and I don't appreciate it.

You and CIT assert that all evidence linked to the USG is not to be trusted. (Except for the PBPR and witnesses who work for the USG but support CIT's conclusions, of course). These are the facts. I should have inserted "possibly government linked" before the word "evidence", to prevent you from coming back at me quoting me as if I think you dismiss "all" evidence. Of course I don't. This justification of selective blindness is wonderful. Wouldn't we all want to do that with our hypotheses. It's a NIST tactic. And that is what I don't appreciate.

Have you positively identified any of the "debris" inside as plane debris? How? What is your expertise that makes you qualified to identify such?

What is yours? If you haven't any, your argument from authority fallacy applies to us both.

What is the source of the photos? What is the chain of custody?

Good point. Some of the photos show the Pentagon in the background. That places them at the scene. Some photographers have been identified. Some photos not showing a recognizable Pentagon but which do show debris and for which the chain of custody is not clear, may be fake. The burden of proof to establish they are fake is on you. You have a habit of reversing that burden of proof. Nevertheless you are going into NPT territory here: everything is fake, based on bare assertions. Prove it.

Sorry, but from all the photos I've seen regarding the Pentagon "crash", none of the photos, in whole or in part, has come even close to accounting for a significant fraction of the 100 tons of a Boeing 757.

Selective blindness. Because it wasn't photographed doesn't mean it doesn't there. Witnesses also saw lots of debris inside. Go search Jon Gold's news forum or something. I'm not going to do all your homework for you. And see the links above ("Examples of Jetliner Crashes Leaving Little Recognizable Debris", etc.)

What are you talking about? Brooks and Lagasse are not spokespersons for the government

They work for the government. When did this "spokesperson" precondition suddenly creep in? Is this a new handy exoneration argument in order to justify inclusion of government sources?

Besides, their testimony was confirmed by at least 11 other witnesses

And it conflicts with Turcios, because Lagasse and Brooks don't place it half over the CITGO. Far from it. And how would Paik and Morin confirm Lagasse and Brooks? Flying over the Navy Annex doesn't mean flying north of the CITGO. It could fly over the Navy Annex AND fly on top of the CITGO. It could fly over the Navy Annex AND fly south of the CITGO. The others at AC and Sean Boger do confirm. Boger wasn't interviewed on-site, which is a pity.

Considering CIT's selective witness pool, who knows how many witnesses were not included. A real documentary would include opposing viewpoints, with commentary and background information about the witnesses, including background information which calls their reports into question. Why couldn't they find witnesses south of the CITGO to confirm their hypothesis? Is that so hard? There have got to be more witnesses. Lastly, I don't believe a deviating flight path excludes impact, because I don't take the PBPR for granted. After all, it is a government source, isn't it?

Your contention that Brooks and Lagasse should be automatically dismissed is illogical.

It's CIT's logic to exclude all government linked sources.

If you know how logic works, then why are you not understanding that the burden of proof is on those who make a claim

CIT is making a claim.

I'm saying that THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PROVEN ITS CLAIM ABOUT THE DNA, RATHER, IT IS JUST A BARE ASSERTION BY A PARTY WHO IS THE MAIN SUSPECT OF THE CRIME AND HAVE SHOWN THEMSELVES TO BE NOT CREDIBLE OR HONEST.

What would it take? Don't answer. You would never accept it, because you dismiss it out-of-hand. Provide direct evidence it was faked (a deviating flight path is not direct). I am open to the possibility.

i do not have to prove the DNA was faked. You have to prove that it was factual, otherwise I do not have to accept the truth of the government's DNA claim. Comprendo?

No comprendo. Reversal of the burden of proof rejected.

The question is, why would you have an a priori presumption of truth for any claims by the main suspect of the 9/11 crime - the US government?

Why would you have an a priori rejection? Is there no in between? This black and white thinking is typical. I don't accept the false dilemma. NIST tells us diesel fuel nor damage caused WTC 7 to "collapse". I agree.

Second of all, please back up your bare assertion that "CIT extended the notion of "suspect" to include all people who report things they disagree with."

They accept the PBPR, Lagasse and Brooks, (and come to think of it, the C-130 pilot) but reject all other government linked sources that disagree with their hypothesis. Furthermore, witnesses such England, McGraw, Wheelhouse and USA Today witnesses are all fully (not partially) rejected. There may be a sound basis for that, but they are rejected and not included nonetheless. I've seen many documentaries that include opposing viewpoints. With proper background information, the viewer is left to judge for himself. That is the proper way to do it. In that specific respect even National Geographic (although they are a bunch of despicable liars) have done better by including our side for comment in their "documentary". Surely you understand this.

Hmmm. How can there be recognizable body parts of plane passengers when the entire plane was reduced to confetti? You can't have it both ways.

This is what I said: "In the case of the Pentagon, what wasn't entering the building was largely reduced to confetti." You nitpick, distort, mince words and quote them out of context to your advantage. Deplorable tactic. Like calling somebody a bigot because he thinks Islamic terrorism is real.

If you assert that CIT didn't look into the physical evidence then you are not very familiar with CIT's work and should educate yourself more about their research before continuing to make such uninformed statements. You apparently missed the parts in their videos and on their web site where they examine the photographs of the Pentagon and discuss how it was impossible for the 757 to have crashed within the first floor without damaging the foundation, as one example. There are many more examples of their discussion of the physical evidenece that you can find if you bother to actually become more familiar with their work.

You must have missed the fact that I have defended CIT against unreasonable attacks frequently, with a sound and extensive in-depth knowledge of their work.

I even wrote an entire damn transcript of Roosevelt Roberts. My Photobucket page contains many photos related to CIT. I defend their witnesses when I think it is justified.

But then again, in your misplaced newbie arrogance I guess you managed to miss all that. We can go back and forth all day, but I don't accept tricks such as reversing the burden of proof and arbitrary source rejection and acceptance based on circular reasoning.

Wow SnowCrash. Your posts here on this thread, particularly the one above, has completely decimated your credibility with me as I no longer consider you a reasonable and logical debater. The above post is so laced with straw men, evasions, and falsehoods that I'm not going to bother continuing with the line by line corrections of your nonsense, as I have better things to do with my time and I see that you are just going to continue to waste my time with your hypocritical and manipulative tactics ad naseum. The fact that you deny the most fundamental rule of logic by continuing to assert that the burden of proof is not on those who make a claim, but on those who don't accept that a claim is proven, shows that you are either intentionally deceptive, or haven't learned a thing about logic despite your constantly making use of logic jargon to make it appear as though you have a superior understanding of logic.

Here's a lesson from wikipedia, since you love to cite that source so often for your lessons in logic to others:

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see negative proof).

SnowCrash, "tricks such as reversing the burden of proof" seem to be your modus operandi, not mine.

Flattery makes friends, truth makes enemies. Since my objective is to seek truth, I will make a lot of enemies. Tragic, but inevitable.

There is one particular person that comes to mind when I think about that: Gregg Roberts. Gregg is always the first to criticize, but at the end of the day his (sometimes harsh) criticism is helpful. We all have the tendency, when we defend a point of view, to downplay evidence contradictory to our own. Our hypotheses become strongest when they can withstand the harshest of criticisms. In this sense, harsh discussion helps to clarify the pros and cons of an argument. In the end truth is what really matters, wherever it leads. However, you run the risk of alienating both your friends and your enemies. Like saying your girlfriend looks like shit in the morning just because it's true ;-) Would she care if you were being "truthful"?

Trust me, it would be very hard to fool men like Gregg Roberts and Jim Hoffman. They are too methodical and they use the method of falsification to strenghten their own arguments and hypotheses. That's why, if at all possible, I read the sources cited in an article, and more often than not it turns out the source has been misrepresented. Hell, you can even be deliberately fooled by a source making a statement involving himself. Mockumentaries are an example. If the Hoffmans or Gregg Roberts make criticisms that aren't justified, they should be challenged. If you want to avoid such challenges, you should attempt to falsify your own work first, preemptively. This is the scientific method and I think this is what inspired Legge's "precautionary principle".

Another example is the often repeated assertion that Marvin Bush "ran WTC security" together with a "cousin of George W. Bush". I believe DRG furthered this argument in one or more of his books. In fact, this claim turns out to be inaccurate: Marvin Bush wasn't on the board of Securacom anymore on 9/11 (although he still was in 2000), Securacom did not "run" security for the WTC (The main responsibility was in the hands of the Port Authority and Jerome Hauer for Kroll) and Wirt D. Walker III is not a cousin of GWB. (Even though even MSM suggests this) This blunder weakens the security argument in the eyes of the neutral onlooker, while it is actually extremely strong, had it not been for the lack of falsification efforts by DRG in promoting this claim. For example, Jerome Hauer is an extremely dubious figure with his hands in almost every single controversial facet of the events surrounding the WTC. On top of that, he is possibly implicated in the anthrax attacks.

In fact finding and truth seeking, especially extremely controversial topics, being intolerant to inaccuracy is vital. When you aren't completely sure about something, you should tone down your assertiveness. When typing that last sentence I was thinking of myself, btw, not you. But I do think it applies to all of us. I keep underestimating how hard that is. But I digress.

I'm not going to bother continuing with the line by line corrections of your nonsense, as I have better things to do with my time

Okay. I would like to have seen that though. So far, it's been quite disappointing from your side.

The fact that you deny the most fundamental rule of logic by continuing to assert that the burden of proof is not on those who make a claim (..)

When you apply this to the DNA evidence, simply saying it cannot be proven false doesn't prove the claim. However, this doesn't mean it is disproven.
When you apply this to a claim of faking DNA evidence you have a burden of proof for that claim which rests on you.

You cite Wikipedia (wonderful, I like it ;-) but you don't read on. In particular, you might find this article interesting.

Keith Lehrer suggests that "generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology [the study of ignorance] is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side …"[2]

Clearly, DNA evidence is one argument against CIT's flyover hypothesis.

On the other side, your argument against the DNA argument is basically an argument of trust. While this is circumstantially justified, you abuse this justified mistrust for arbitrary rejection of evidence and employ a double standard to boot. (PBPR, Brooks, Lagasse, C-130 pilot) Furthermore you have no direct evidence of DNA fakery. What if you had? What if you had to take this to court? Would CIT's accepted witness list convince a judge that plane did not hit the Pentagon in the face of the entire volume of physical evidence? You notice I take this discussion from the scientific to the legal domain for a moment, to clarify the burden of proof issue.

When I pit these against eachother, in my opinion DNA evidence weighs heavier than your trust argument. However, the DNA evidence is just one argument in a body of cumulative evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon.

Lastly, I'd like to note that I place a strong separation between flight path anomalies and flyover. You know my reasons for that separation, they are outlined in my previous comments.

The debris was ejected out into other buildings. They couldn't let those buildings all fall in place. It could have flooded Manhattan. So they sent steel beams 300 to 500 feet out into other buildings. All cut to perfect size to fit on trucks. This is what I show people. Those buildings didn't fall down due to heat, they exploded. Where did that force come from. Anyway, most people are not aware of how far debris travelled and embedded. And they can't answer that question.

The fact that those planes were so destroyed is another reason why I think they may have carried an explosive package. If you watch Zero 911 you see the testimony of the guy in the second building and he says he heard two explosions. Boom Boom as the plane hit.

but apparently you missed my point. The point is that one part of the negative "no plane hit the Pentagon" is not Frank's but CIT's. There is no proof for that, so we end up with the correct statement: "There is no proof a 757 did not hit the Pentagon". Which is statement of denial of CIT's hypothesis.

CIT provides evidence for their claims and Frank failed to directly address this evidence at all let alone refute it. Dismissing evidence with a hand wave as a means to claim there is no proof is not science. A scientist would require evidence of greater strength to refute it (e.g. 4 or more witnesses who were on or right near the gas station who are filmed on location placing the plane south of the citgo just as emphatically as Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios place the plane on the north side). Frank has produced none. Furthermore you can't fairly assert a north side impact when such a hypothesis not only requires that the entire PBPR to have been completely fabricated but also the light poles, generator trailer, C-ring hole, and surveillance video to all be faked as well. This is not a reasonable hypothesis to suggest if a plane impacted the building.

In anticipation of your reply to the above, consider these questions:
(1) How was the generator moved towards the Pentagon? What kind of bomb pulls generators?

CIT presents official testimony from Sean Boger and renovation contractor Michael DiPaula who admit that they were conveniently wrapping up the renovation in the days prior to the event and were actually moving construction trailers away from the scene!

We know there was A LOT of activity in that area due to this and the fact that Bush had traveled from the heliport on 9/10 and was scheduled to return there on 9/11 around noon.

The point is that they could have easily moved the generator trailer askew in advance as if they were gettting ready to move it out of there like they already did other trailers the day prior.

The damage to that generator trailer is NOT consistent with a 757 as explained in the thread linked above.

(2) What caused the gash in the generator? The bomb?

"The" bomb? What makes you think only one bomb was used? Bottom line you need to analyze the dimensions of the trailer in relation to a 757 becuase we know the damage is NOT consisten with this and that is the most important point.

(3) What caused the round imprint in the facade slightly larger than a 757 engine?

Not sure what "round imprint" you are talking about but it certainly wasn't caused by a relatively slow moving, banking plane on the north side as reported by the witnesses. Nor could this plane be the low and level extremely fast moving ambiguous object shown in the manipluated surveillance video.

(4) What caused the hull impact hole?

Shaped charges? Certainly not a relatively slow right banking plane on the north side.

(5) How is a u-turn to the south west compatible with a flyover?

Roosevelt was clearly having trouble relaying cardinal directions which is not uncommon with any human witness. He clarified it with landmarks by stating it banked around and headed to the "mall entrance" or the north side of the Pentagon which would be upriver exactly like regular air traffic. Are you accusing Roosevelt Roberts of completely lying about this plane flying away? If so what would be his motive?

(6) How were the exit holes accomplished? All with wall breaching kits? Did those kits include some kind of mechanism to spray all kinds of random plane debris and passenger DNA outwards?

What??

There is only one breached hole in the C-ring. The other two are roll up doors that had smoke damage on the top of them.

No alleged DNA ever had to be in the Pentagon for them to claim that it was. They controlled the chain of custody. You are not thinking logically.

(7) Why does CIT dismiss all evidence supposedly under the godlike real-time manipulatory force of the government yet they accept the PBPR at face value?

Relatively speaking your hyperbolic characterization of the physical damage at the Pentagon is not a fair representation since it is in the literal backyard of the suspect while you have no problems asserting that the same individuals were able to pull off a triple covert controlled demolition of 3-highrises in downtown Manhattan.

Furthermore you are misrepresenting the claims of CIT who do not rely solely on the PBPR for anything. Yes they reference it and yes they hold the govt to their word for it but they have said many times that the photographic evidence establishes the required direction damage even without that report. There are not "3 exit holes". You are entirely wrong about that.

(8) Who or what caused the other two exit holes?

There is only one alleged exit hole. You have been misinformed or came to your own false conclusion about this. A smoke damaged roll up door is not the same as a breached wall.

Guess what the circles mean (You can right-click to open the large version in a new tab or so)

So what? Just because the govt claims DNA was found there doesn't make it so. You are misrepresenting the claims of CIT by suggesting they accept the PBPR at "face value". The govt claim of the directional damage is backed up by photographic evidence. The govt claim about the alleged DNA is not backed up by anything but their word. Analogy: the fact that NIST accurately represented the impact holes of the WTC doesn't prove their entire report correct nor does the fact that they lied about what caused the collapse prove their report of the location of the impact holes incorrect.

I know many people who say no plane hit the Pentagon. Many of those people gravitate positively towards 9/11 truth. Yet they all have one thing in common: they didn't study the subject matter diligently enough, but have an assertiveness about them that rivals that of debunkers.

Kind of like you right now with your entirely false claim of "3 exit holes".

The whole Pentagon cul-de-sac stems from the fact that the Pentagon has an absolutely unbelievably strong structure, and the section hit was reinforced on top of that. The result: an impact which does not look like a normal impact.

Your word "unbelievably strong" is hyperbole and false. There is no science to this argument at all and it has no bearing on the north side approach/flyover evidence anyway.

And then...the speculation began, and the perpetrators sat back with a sadistic grin, knowing full well that excessive secrecy and lack of information divides.... and conquers. I'm interested in CIT's work because of the information about the flight path. NOT about flyover, which becomes increasingly absurd when you actually attempt to REALLY explain how this was REALLY all accomplished.

There is nothing absurd about it at all given the evidence just like the notion of a covert triple controlled demolition in downtown Manhattan on live TV is not absurd given the evidence.

NoC proves a flyover. This is a fact that ALL pilots, experts, and CIT detractors including Hoffman and all JREF'ers seem to unanimously agree on. You and Chris Sarns are the only ones I have seen try to argue otherwise and neither of you have even begun to demonstrate how this could be possible or state a logical hypothesis that incorporates this yet explains for the light poles, generator trailer, surveillance video etc.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

I sincerely apologize in advance for the lengthy response. I know this annoys some people. Yet I can't afford to be brief here. (Because Adam is such a good debater :P)

A scientist would require evidence of greater strength to refute it (e.g. 4 or more witnesses who were on or right near the gas station who are filmed on location placing the plane south of the citgo just as emphatically as Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios place the plane on the north side).

I agree that it would be very useful if somebody tried to interview more witnesses.

However, like I said, I differentiate between flight path and impact. Furthermore, I see contradictions between Turcios and Lagasse & Brooks. How could Lagasse & Brooks emphatically state they saw the plane away from CITGO while Turcios emphatically states it was half over the CITGO? Turcios draws a completely different path from the rest, with not even a bank in it.. And why are Lagasse & Brooks not treated as government linked sources and therefore dismissed as per CIT's own policy? What does it say about Lagasse's memory if he couldn't remember where he was parked? Wasn't Brooks in his car? Where is Turcios on the CITGO video?

Furthermore you can't fairly assert a north side impact when such a hypothesis not only requires that the entire PBPR to have been completely fabricated but also the light poles, generator trailer, C-ring hole, and surveillance video to all be faked as well. This is not a reasonable hypothesis to suggest if a plane impacted the building.

Yet somehow it is reasonable to suggest everything is fabricated for no impact. Isn't this a double standard? I don't accept black & white choices though. It doesn't have to be "either south side or north side" and the PBPR doesn't have to be "either completely fabricated or completely true". (The same goes for the NIST report)

CIT presents official testimony from Sean Boger and renovation contractor Michael DiPaula who admit that they were conveniently wrapping up the renovation in the days prior to the event and were actually moving construction trailers away from the scene!

Thanks, great source. Here's a wider quote from the same document Ranke cites: (Everybody read it, the comments about evacuation and the Secret Service are nothing less than fascinating)

Renovation worker:"This area here is considered the -- we call it the outside area here the laydown area. It's the heliport area, and out there we -- we have all of our construction trailers. We were in the process right prior to September 11 cleaning out the area. We just -- we moved all the trailers. Actually, on the tenth we had some other trailers that were just leaving because we were getting ready to turn it back over to the building. And we had one trailer left, which was the -- we had the Singleton (phonetic) trailer out there. And -- and then we had some other trailers over here. So that's the lay down area, where the plane actually came over."

(...)

"And I guess -- it probably -- I can't even -- I would say like 10 seconds maybe. It seemed like it was forever as you were hearing -- you're hearing it approach us, but it was coming right -- right towards us. I mean --"

Interviewer: "And yet but you couldn't see it, you were inside the trailer?"

Renovation worker:"We couldn't -- we couldn't see it. We couldn't -- we just -- we heard it. And we were like, okay, what is that. And then all of a sudden it seemed like the whole roof was just being peeled off, because what was happening is the wing was probably about two feet above, and there was a generator outside where the engine had hit. The engine hit the generator, the wing clipped the generator and tilted it up. But it sounded like the whole group -- it was just like a can opener. Like just peeling off."

You go on to say:

The point is that they could have easily moved the generator trailer askew in advance as if they were gettting ready to move it out of there like they already did other trailers the day prior.

Not so easy at all. When the renovation worker spoke about "trailers" he was referring to the type of trailers for people, not generators. From the testimony that CR refers to, am I supposed to believe that the generator fence was cut, the generator moved towards the Pentagon, engine-shape damaged and surgically gashed the day or even the minutes before? In real-time then? The man literally says the engine hit the generator and the wing was above him. Now you can say he deduced that, but in that same manner you "deduce" from his words that they moved the generator on the tenth. The generator was not only moved towards the Pentagon, it was damaged in a highly specific manner. It was on its knees. It was deformed. Did a bomb cause this yet the generator stayed in its designated place at the same time, at the precise angle predicted? Miraculous.

Like I said elsewhere in this thread, it's a must to always read the sources someone cites. Could they have done this without this man noticing? If he were in on it, would he be risking his life being where he was? Admittedly, in a compartmentalized operation, he need not have known all of what was coming, but then again, the man is traumatized and on medication. Great 'agent' ;-)

I am with you on that fact that the renovation and the activities surrounding it are suspect. But for different reasons. I suspect the building renovation possibly served one or more of these purposes:

set up ways to further strengthen the building against the expected plane impact

set up ways to guide the plane into the correct spot (white line, homing device)

test blast proofing technologies in a real life scenario (did you read the triumphant comments in the PBPR?)

In the CIT thread, they say the gouge in the generator may have been cut before. They use this photo:

Yet the cut was diagonal:

Nice try though.

Not sure what "round imprint" you are talking about but it certainly wasn't caused by a relatively slow moving, banking plane on the north side as reported by the witnesses. Nor could this plane be the low and level extremely fast moving ambiguous object shown in the manipluated surveillance video.

This doesn't address the round imprint at all, in my opinion.

Then about the hull shaped hole you say:

Shaped charges? Certainly not a relatively slow right banking plane on the north side.

Not that the north side has anything to do with that if it wasn't the north side of course, but even if it was the north side, I disagree. Furthermore, I fail to see how shaped charges could account for this. Shaped charges wouldn't show the sort of orange fireball would they?

Roosevelt was clearly having trouble relaying cardinal directions which is not uncommon with any human witness. He clarified it with landmarks by stating it banked around and headed to the "mall entrance" or the north side of the Pentagon which would be upriver exactly like regular air traffic. Are you accusing Roosevelt Roberts of completely lying about this plane flying away? If so what would be his motive?

So if his account fatally conflicts with flyover, he is in error? Nice comeback.

Furthermore he didn't say what you said he did. He actually said:

Roosevelt Roberts:
It was heading.. back across 27, and it looks like, it appeared to me I was in the south, and that plane was heading like uh... south west.. coming out.

(...)

Roosevelt Roberts:
It looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turning around because you got the mall there and then where I was was south, and the plane from the direction it was heading it was facing west so it went south west away from the pentagon.

(...)

Roosevelt Roberts:
It seemed like that it came from uh... it... hold on a second... it seem like it came from uh... south west.. look, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, almost right where that first plane had uhm... fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction.

If he was having trouble with cardinal directions, how did he know he was in the south parking lot and saw the plane there?

What??

There is only one breached hole in the C-ring. The other two are roll up doors that had smoke damage on the top of them.

(...)

There are not "3 exit holes". You are entirely wrong about that.

(...)

There is only one alleged exit hole. You have been misinformed or came to your own false conclusion about this. A smoke damaged roll up door is not the same as a breached wall.

Thank you very much for clearing that up. I stand corrected. I was waiting for information on that, and now you have resolved it. I got the first info from a picture on Jim Hoffman's site, who got it from Eric Bart and modified it, I think. In that picture, the other two holes are also described as 'exit holes', and started me on my quest to find out what they were. For a while there the only explanation I could think of was that these holes were punched by first responders. Thanks again.

Relatively speaking your hyperbolic characterization of the physical damage at the Pentagon is not a fair representation since it is in the literal backyard of the suspect while you have no problems asserting that the same individuals were able to pull off a triple covert controlled demolition of 3-highrises in downtown Manhattan.

Yes, because explosives and evidence for explosives were actually found in WTC dust. Because that line of inquiry actually focuses on physical evidence AND witness statements. Furthermore, placing explosives in a building under the cover of elevator maintenance and fireproofing upgrades is vastly different from elaborately faking a plane crash using an actual commercial airplane (making impossible u-turn flyover maneuvers) as cover. Placing bombs is not the same as faking physical damage including an entire damage path inside the building.

For the same reasons I reject NPT at the WTC without even requiring video evidence: the plane imprint wasn't cased by a shaped charge. Lastly, analysis of the accelerated motion of WTC 7 scientifically proves it was brought down, and we have expert corroboration in the person of Danny Jowenko. We even have countdown witnesses. Whereas in the case of the Pentagon, you are forced to deny both witness who saw the plane crash, deny all the physical evidence AND have a plane fly away that nobody saw but one, and he saw it fly south west back towards the navy annex.

Furthermore you are misrepresenting the claims of CIT who do not rely solely on the PBPR for anything. Yes they reference it and yes they hold the govt to their word for it but they have said many times that the photographic evidence establishes the required direction damage even without that report.

They rely on it to present us with a false dilemma. By the way, I would like to see that photographic evidence. Did you notice the diagram in my other comment that supports the 52 degree impact angle? Didn't the PBPR say 42? What about the round imprint? If that is the engine imprint, the PBPR is a fraud.

So what? Just because the govt claims DNA was found there doesn't make it so. You are misrepresenting the claims of CIT by suggesting they accept the PBPR at "face value". The govt claim of the directional damage is backed up by photographic evidence. The govt claim about the alleged DNA is not backed up by anything but their word. Analogy: the fact that NIST accurately represented the impact holes of the WTC doesn't prove their entire report correct nor does the fact that they lied about what caused the collapse prove their report of the location of the impact holes incorrect.

Just because you claim the government isn't trustworthy, it doesn't mean the DNA doesn't exist. I am open to the possibility the DNA is fake, but I would like to see direct evidence for it. Not by way of a flyover hypothesis. The DNA could have easily been placed there. For example by way of a commercial plane delivery device. ;-) Why should I trust the 'word' of Lagasse and Brooks by the way? They work for the government also. Should I trust them because they are likable and support the north side flight path? I know I'm charging, but I feel exposing this double standard is justified. The forensic specialists are people working for the government too, just like Brooks and Lagasse.

Kind of like you right now with your entirely false claim of "3 exit holes".

Touché. But I did often write it down with a caveat: "or punched by first reponders". I was wrong. By the way, also kind of like the perpendicular "pre-cut gash" you cite from the CIT forum, which was diagonal. Didn't you study the generator photos? Also kind of like attempting to frame Roosevelt Roberts as being confused about "cardinal directions" while the transcript is quite clear.

Your word "unbelievably strong" is hyperbole and false. There is no science to this argument at all and it has no bearing on the north side approach/flyover evidence anyway.

Spirally reinforced columns and an upgraded facade that was blast resistant. Large redundant load capacity. Columns with little spacing between them. It's not a hyperbole, far from it. This is one tough building. Many blast proof windows were still intact after impact. Quite something, even for an alleged bomb. I have an entire documentary about this on tape. If the columns buckle, the encasing holds them up still. All very impressive to say the least. One citation for the PBPR (Like the NIST report, I accept nor reject all of it)

"Most of the structure used a specified concrete strength of 2,500 psi and intermediate-grade reinforcing steel (yield of 40,000 psi)"

Finally you say:

There is nothing absurd about it at all given the evidence just like the notion of a covert triple controlled demolition in downtown Manhattan on live TV is not absurd given the evidence.

NoC proves a flyover. This is a fact that ALL pilots, experts, and CIT detractors including Hoffman and all JREF'ers seem to unanimously agree on. You and Chris Sarns are the only ones I have seen try to argue otherwise and neither of you have even begun to demonstrate how this could be possible or state a logical hypothesis that incorporates this yet explains for the light poles, generator trailer, surveillance video etc.

As stated above, the comparison to explosive demolition is entirely unjustified. I won't repeat those arguments here.

The only thing NoC could prove at this point is NoC. I don't have to agree with the anti-CIT club to be cool do I? ;-) Anyways, thanks for taking the time to elaborately respond. It was certainly worth reading and I came away from it with new insights.

You are incorrectly assuming CIT's position on a LOT of things, and not forming a coherent rebuttal to the evidence they present. Talk about missing the forest for the trees. You have zoomed in to the point where the picture is so pixelized that you can not see the big picture. At this point the sheer volume of questions and trains of thought that you are following has reached a convoluted level that is extremely difficult to thoroughly respond to in writing.

If you have checked your e-mail, you know I have forwarded over a direct request from Craig Ranke for you to call him. He has assured me that he will be happy to address each and every one of these questions over the phone and he will be happy to record it and post for everyone to hear the answers. That seems like a fair request don't you think? Not trying to be confrontational, with all respect; just pointing out to you and all what's on the table.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Jim Hoffman contradicts my assertion that the Pentagon was an extremely strong building but I disagree with him.

The diagonal line is clearly visible. The gash runs perpendicular to the edge of the photograph, while the generator itself is positioned diagonally. Furthermore, it's not near the center as in the CIT photograph, it's near the edge.

The reason I don't check my e-mail is because I am staying at my parents' house, trying to recover from some health problems (diaphragm, acid reflux, gastrointestinal tract, long story) and my e-mail isn't available via webmail. While I have the technical capability to check it from there, it's undoable because I am subscribed to large volume mailing lists that all but freeze the connection.

Yes, Craig's request is fair, (I'll visit my house and check my e-mail) and I'll consider it. By the way, since Craig know a hell of a lot more about the Pentagon, the topography and the scene in general (since he was there and I was not), I'm going to have to do a lot of extra work to make such a discussion worth while. I don't want it to go down the "Caustic Logic" way.

1. The "zoomed in" PIC on this post showing the damage and smoke pattern in the "C" ring gap in juxtaposition with the generator and damage to the facade and the "C" ring hole is interesting. The minor smoke damage at the "hole?" is swamped by the major smoke damage as seen at the "garage door" or whatever other opening is on the other side of the overpass or connector. Does this not mean that SOMETHING certainly happened in the larger smoke damaged area? How can that damage occur if there were no elements of an airvehicle? to initiate damage or to ignite and continue the burning. Why would the garage-like doors even become damaged?

Does not this evidence challenge the PBPR's conclusion about penetration angle of the airvehicle?...?

2. Regarding how strong the Pentagon actually was-is. If it was so strong, then why did it collapse at all?

Some conclusions about building strength may be a little bit off I think.

with your observations. As far as the collapse goes, a weak point seems to have been the expansion joints. This is where the building sags after impact, and this is where collapse initiation takes place. That's why the north edge of the collapse zone is so perfectly straight, like a cross-section. Furthermore, I would describe it as a partial collapse, not a full progressive collapse.

Progressive collapse? What do you mean? I don't think that word was even invented until after 9-11 to explain the demolition of the twin towers.

How do you know that explosives were not used to cause further damage to the building to counter the reporters on the scene who were saying that as far as they could see there was no evidence a plane hit the building? Before that roof came down, only a 16' hole in the facade existed.

Yes, it is true that Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios drew maps that are not carbon copies of one another.

However, imagine this for a second. You and two friends are facing the pentagon from the gas station. You all experience the plane going over your area.

One friend says it approached from the 10:30 (o'clock) position (while pointing diagonally up). Another points more toward 11:00. And you happen to point even closer to 11:30.

All three of you are definitely in agreement that it flew to the "left" of the 12:00 position. All three of you are in one hundred percent agreement that it most certainly did NOT fly at the 2:30 position relative to where you were standing.

That is what we are talking about here.

No two eyewitnesses would draw exact carbon copies of the flight path. There is going to be some room for error in spacial perception. But "spacial perception" relies on subtleties and fine points. All of these witnesses are in unanimous agreement that the plane was nowhere near the downed light poles.

To point to subtle differences in the accounts of the north side witnesses to suggest that maybe they're all wrong and that the south approach is correct after all is grasping at straws. (Snowcrash, I know you're not doing this personally; you're trying to reconcile north approach with impact; but some of the more ardent anti CIT people like Arebesque use this tactic to try to discredit the NoC witnesses.)

All three of you are definitely in agreement that it flew to the "left" of the 12:00 position. All three of you are in one hundred percent agreement that it most certainly did NOT fly at the 2:30 position relative to where you were standing.

I agree. They had to have been horribly mistaken. But since Brooks was allegedly in his car, Lagasse couldn't remember where he was parked and Turcios isn't visible on the CCTV images, it suggests that they may have indeed been horribly mistaken. For Turcios, this means nothing if the CITGO video was faked, but the amount of fakery is growing and growing, and evermore unlikely. Direct evidence for fakery is what I'd like, not an argument of trust. I understand that such direct evidence of CITGO CCTV fakery is suggested, and again, it's worth considering. It's tiring though.

Nevertheless, there's the guys at Arlington Cemetery who also saw the plane fly on the north path. They also describe a bank. If this type of Pentagon contradictions didn't exist, we wouldn't have this discussion. To try to completely hand wave these witnesses is wrong, imo. But as I've said in other threads, I feel that there are contradictions between the witnesses, other witnesses and the physical evidence and I believe these contradictions need to be resolved. I'm in the process of doing that, and the physical evidence for a plane strike is strong. As strong as I find the physical evidence and the elaborate and unlikely scenario required to fake it, as weak do I find the possibility that a flyover involved a u-turn (!) and a south west heading. I wish that Rob Balsamo would do some calculations on that too.

The light poles are a different matter. If the NoC flight path is correct, then the light pole damage was staged. However, I believe that the small section of the light pole might have hit England's window, and not the large section. This is a premature opinion though. Furthermore, I believe England was trying to be "smart" with CIT and it cost him his credibility. I don't exclude the possibility the light pole scene was staged and England co-opted. In my opinion, it's a separate line of inquiry that deserves as much attention as the other physical evidence we discussed.

Also, if the light poles weren't staged, then that doesn't exclude the plane flying over the Navy Annex. I'm not hell bent on discrediting the NoC witnesses, but I am hell bent on preventing myself from being fooled by subtle variants of confirmation bias. A binary perspective on the PBPR (true of false) seems to serve the purpose of presenting us researchers with a false dilemma.

I wonder if anyone has given thought to just how difficult it would be to stage the light pole damage. These steps are required:

1. Accurate mapping of the area to determine exactly which poles would be hit.
2. Manufacture of a set of bent and broken poles, damaged in precisely the manner expected if hit by a soft metal object travelling at high speed.
3. Knocking over five straight poles.
4. Removal of these 40 foot straight poles from the scene.
5. Placing five bent and broken poles in suitable positions, one of then through the windscreen of a car, without the occupant noticing the operators.

Steps 3, 4 and 5 would have to be done while surrounded by hundreds of observers stuck in traffic, all focusing their heightened attention on the area.

What would be the probability of success without detection?

Even if you think there is a chance of success, think about the planners of the project beforehand. Would they have thought they could do all this successfully without anyone noticing? The answer is of course "no". So, if they wouldn't have thought they could do it, they wouldn't have planned to do it. And if they didn't plan to do it, it wouldn't have been done. And if it wasn't done, what knocked down the poles?

1: Not necessary to map the area at all although highly accurate maps would have been readily available in any case, it is the Pentagon you know. In fact one overhead photo would be enough to plan the path. Basic measurements could be done from the photo alone or the whole thing could have just been guessed at based on what looked right.
2. No need to manufacture new poles. What if the existing poles were simply taken down the night before, appropriately "damaged" and placed there for the following morning’s event? This would explain why the poles did not get thrown more then a few feet even though they were supposedly hit by a 757 going 500+ MPH. One pole (#2) even fell the wrong way! If that is not a clear physical impossibility proving the poles were staged I don't know what is.
3. Yes they would need to be knocked over, big deal. It could have been done the night before under cover of darkness when 99.9% of everyone was asleep and traffic was almost non-existent. A "road crew" could have put out a few cones and bingo they could work with no problems.
4. No need to remove the existing poles at all in fact using the existing poles would be the best way to do it, again the night before!
5. The poles could have been placed the night before not under anyone’s view by a "road crew" all except the pole that supposedly struck the cab yet did not scratch the hood LOL. Staging the poles would require the cab driver to at the very least lie about what happened. Not difficult at all and his conflicting testimonies are very suspicious to say the least.

The staging of the poles would not have been nearly as difficult as you are suggesting. All of them were lying on a down slope just a few feet from their base hidden from view of the roadway except the one that supposedly "speared" the cab.

Have you figured out yet how it could even be physically possible for pole #2 to have been thrown backwards? Much like JFKs head when he was supposedly shot from behind yet his head defied the laws of physics and snapped backwards towards the impact.

Have you figured out how it is physically possible for the pole to supposedly spear the cab and yet not touch the hood? Seems fishy to me that a pole supposedly knocked down by a 500+ MPH collision with a 757 would not slam down at least hard enough to leave a little dent or scratch on the hood but hey I am not a physics expert.

I also wonder why these poles supposedly struck so hard did not even disturb the lawn where they landed. Not even a divot left like when a golfer swings too low and sends a chunk of turf flying. Seems odd to me but again I am no expert.

1 The mapping was inaccurate, so the light poles were staged but in the wrong place. This causes the need for a flight path cover-up
2. There is doubt if they were indeed damaged in precisely the manner expected by a fast traveling plane. This is what raises concerns
3,4,5 They could be removed by night and 4 of the 5 could have been placed beforehand. The VDOT is nearby, where these poles are stored.

The occupant, being Lloyd England, could have been involved. Suggesting this irritates some people. So be it. His story is incoherent and blatantly deceitful. He could be lying for two obvious reaons: (1) He was on to CIT's intentions and wanted to avoid trouble. It backfired. (2) He realized a flight path cover up was in the process of being exposed and he changed his story to match.

There is one less obvious possibility: a 'Sirhan Sirhan' situation. If you watch 'The Eye Of The Storm' by CIT, you'll note strange references Lloyd England makes to him visiting 'conspiracy meetings' before 9/11, where they discussed politics, and for example, the death of Princess Diana. During the crash, a book by David Icke about (I believe) the 'Reptilian Elite' nonsense was on his passenger seat. I'm typing these things on memory, so I may be off here and there. LE also describes a silent stranger helping him remove the light pole from his windshield. The stranger did not say one word. I find this abnormal, but maybe that's just me.

This leaves the probability of success without detection to 4 poles already removed and 1 which has to be staged on the scene. It appears that the scene is question was controlled by agents shortly after impact. The VDOT, where these poles are stored, is nearby near the Navy Annex.

Obviously, if the physical damage matches the OCT (impact angle) than it is very likely the poles were uprooted by the plane. If the flight path is different, the poles could not have been hit and there has to be some other explanation. All I can say is "I don't know", so I'd like to emphatically state the above is speculation.

I do not reject CIT's work, but I place serious questions on flyover. This is because (A) I don't believe a deviation in flight path necessitates it, since I do not take the PBRB impact angle as a given (B) I don't believe enough witnesses have been heard, there are contradictory statements and the three witnesses in the critical vantage points could have been mistaken (C) There is plenty of physical evidence of flight impact which is extraordinarily difficult to fake (D) There is all but one direct witness of flyover and he describes a U-turn to the south west (E) D is, imho, technically impossible for a commercial aircraft traveling its path at the speed reported. However, this is a common sense argument not based on calculations.

If calculations prove a U-turn to the south west, back to the navy annex, possible, I'll retract that statement. However, in that case I wonder why on earth there are no more direct witnesses.

"But enough already. I don't need "proof" that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. The government needs to produce proof that it did."

Exactly!

This shoddy piece of crap bears all the hallmarks of a desperate damage control effort by the tiny group of self-proclaimed "protectors of the movement" led by Hoffman/Victoria/Arabesque(whoever that is?)/Gold to try to prop up the quickly collapsing OCT of the Pentagon attack in response to CIT's latest video, "National Security Alert" getting the endorsements of so many high profile 9/11 truth advocates. If that was the purpose of this paper, I think it has seriously backfired. Why even bother to address the issue, Frank, if you are not going to bother to put the same kind of scholarly effort into it as you do the other subjects (and that fact is so transparent)?

But the basic foundation of the paper - attempting to prove a double negative - is not a scholarly approach.

Your minor thesis - that You cannot prove that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon - is practically useless in the world of logic.

Your major thesis - that it is harmful to the movement for people to believe that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon - is not a scientific-based report at all. You are straying into questionable territory regarding PR and/or trying to influence a movement. Is that your job? I have a problem with people who feel that it is a "danger to the movement" to disbelieve any part of the OCT which has not come even close to being shown to be true, such as the official tale of AA77 having hit the Pentagon. It certainly shouldn't be the basis for a "scientific" paper when it clearly is not a scientific study.

We went to war with Iraq because SH couldn't "prove" he didn't have weapons. The inspectors were there but had to leave suddenly because it hadn't been proven he didn't have them. I remember the Iraqi guy leaving NY and speaking about how impossible it is to prove you don't have something. It isn't logical. The burden is to prove they do exist. How anyone is to prove the plane didn't go in is beyond me. Proving it did go in would be more logical.

This is not meant to be nasty or whatever, so please don't interpret it as such, but: isn't this kind of odd for you to say, considering you accept CIT's north side flight path as proof that a plane didn't go in?

I consider the north side path to prove the OCT is a lie. I consider that there is no plane and that does not prove that a plane went in. I've tried to be clear on here. The OCT has a major anomaly. Why should I believe anything else they say.

Shoddy piece of crap indeed. I did not want to get into "ad hominem" territory but---well-said.
He (Frank) just does not understand why one cannot find, quote: "proof that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon". I believe he has a few wrong wiring connections on his motherboard--or something.

Flight 77, wherever it crashed, would have 56 (or is it 64?) human carcasses tightly strapped into airliner seats. The typical resulting mess can be viewed in the documentary record of other airliner crash sites. I'd rather not get into any more detail here--it's gruesome to say the least. Let's just call it a tossed salad of aluminum, plastic, fabrics, wiring, and flame-grilled meat. Vaporization is something that happens to kerosene (or Jet A), but never happens to forged aluminum, magnesium, steel, Inconel, titanium, etc. at crash sites. Inconel melts at about 1413*C or 2575*F and a turbine engine contains lots of it. Anyway, this getting too techie.

I just hate it when "respectable" names in the 9/11 Truth Movement publish confusing and complicated stuff like this piece, especially in the name of simplifying or clarifying. It's a shame. Enemies without--enemies within--god help us.

"Does the order still stand?" and Cheney angrily confirmed that it did."

No.

It's "Do the orders still stand?" Plural.

If you can't get this minor, trivial, banal, simple point accurate, why are you presenting yourself some kind of expert/authority on 9/11?

"There is little doubt that Cheney had it in his hand to shoot down this plane but had a reason not to do so."

That does not necessarily follow logically from what you presented (althouth it could be true). This unscientific opinion is indicative of the problems with this paper. You're pretending to couch your opinions under the banner of science, but they are not even close to following the scientific method.

The other problem is your inclusion of nonsense theories, right at the front of the article, as if they merited investigation. At least build on evidence rather than on the alleged "views" of random people, some of which are disinformation clowns who deliberately mislead people in order to discredit the 9/11 truth moviement.

I'm surprised alien spacecraft didn't show up. If this paper is meant to be taken seriously it needs a newfound adherence to the evidence.

I'm not bothering to read further, as I don't consider the author reliable. Unreliable scholarship has been the Achilles heel of the movement since day 1. Fix that first.

>>The other problem is your inclusion of nonsense theories, right at the front of the article, as if they merited investigation.

I tend to agree with this, initially, but the method that the Journal of 9/11 Studies has used is to respond to the claims no matter what they are, and this seems to have worked, even though it has consumed some people's time and energy. The papers in the Journal scientifically responded to Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, etc. and that's how those claims were put to rest. Almost no one supports those anymore because they are debunked, and one can link to those papers easily whenever someone starts trying to revive those claims. If you ignore them, they only fester.

>>as I don't consider the author reliable

I disagree with this. Frank has written a lot of good papers and has been a co-author on the nanothermite paper, so Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit, etc do consider him reliable. Can you be specific about why you don't consider him reliable?

I am not surprised if anyone misquotes Mineta or makes other such errors given how vast and complex the amount of information has been compiled and created about the Pentagon attack, so I you seem to be going overboard on that detail. It is the same idea. Order or orders. Imagine how many emails he's getting already as it is.

Frank is doing what almost no one else ever has -- trying to bring the community of activists and researchers together on the Pentagon attack using points of agreement and addressing and readdressing everyone's concerns in public discourse to get there. It's rare for anyone to try this and to keep their sanity. I support the effort.

If that's the best you do to find a cause to reject the paper I don't have much to worry about.

What I find amusing is your bold final statement. Why bother contacting the White House? They already know explosives were used to bring down the towers - they had NIST write the deceptive report, remember. It is lawyers you need to contact and bring a case against them. And that takes public support. How are you going to get public support if you promote something that cannot be proved correct?

I included the "nonsense" theories in order to reject them. What else was I supposed to do with them, given that serious people have presented them?

Why don't you get down to studying the serious problems with the theory that the 757 could not have hit the Pentagon? Why don't you study the mathematics in the Pilot's website?

"Bruno I am now becoming very worried by the way you are approaching this subject.

You give no ground and keep using evidence that is neither related to the Pentagon or a similar aircraft crash. It seems you are playing some sort mind game?

I can see no worth in debating you while you assert Hoffman is 100% wrong and can not see the worth of Legge's article you are up to no good and I am not going to play with you on those terms.

Time for this movement to close ranks once again!

Good bye Bruno.....good luck!

Regards John "

And I would like to respond. John, I used Jim Hoffman's 'evidence' to prove that what he says is false. Where is the mind game? I was just getting started. The fact that the board was closed without an explanation is quite revealing. I think the real worry you have is that everything Hoffman says is on shaky ground, and each day would bring more light onto that fact. This movement is closing ranks, indeed.

"Version 5. Significant changes have been made starting under the heading “Calum Douglas Flight Data Recorder Presentation” on page 9. This version studies possible flight paths and finds that a range of paths exist which would enable the plane to hit the light poles and the Pentagon without experiencing excessive g-force. "

Not even close. It is not a "scientific" paper, nor is it a "scientific paper"

Neither of those things contain wording like: (as merely one example among MANY, with several bolded sub-examples in one paragraph alone)

"It is also reasonable to believe that, with use of GPS, a poorly trained hijacker could have
navigated close to his target. The plane had, after all, been set up in cruise by its original pilot
and would presumably have been on autopilot when taken over. It may not be too hard to point
a plane at a wall with some help from the autopilot."

That is ridiculous beyond the absurd.

You are also incorrectly using the concept of "the (so-called) Scientific Method".

You are attempting to use it as and for broad logical argumentation instead of its intended actual scientific use for specific scientific testing of repeatable experimentation on focused hypotheses.

This "paper" should be pulled from the Journal of 9/11 Studies. And they need to review their policies and procedures for deciding how to choose articles for publication.

Sullun, you say: “Not even close. It is not a "scientific" paper, nor is it a "scientific paper". Then you quote me with your complaints in bold.

Let’s look at your complaints in context. Note that they are all in one paragraph. Note that this is a discourse about what poorly trained hijackers might have been able to do. In footnote 31 you will see an expanded discussion explaining why we might suspect they could have done it. It is not a statement about what they did do. They might not have even been on the plane – there is no proof that they were on board.

You appear to have missed the point of this nearby paragraph:

“People who assert that the poor flying skills of Hani Hanjour provide proof that the official claim that the 757 hit the Pentagon is false are failing to take into account the possibility that the plane was hijacked by an on-board device pre-programmed to take over the autopilot. The ability to fly planes accurately without pilot assistance was established well before 9/11.”(ref)

So you see I am not depending on the hijackers doing it.

Furthermore you seem to have entirely missed the way this paper works. My paper is not arguing that hijackers did it, or that an on-board control device did it. This part of my paper is arguing that you can’t prove that neither hijackers nor an on-board device would be capable of hitting the Pentagon.

Have a go. Try and prove that neither could do it. Use the scientific method. You only have to find two solid pieces of evidence, one for each method, and you win.

Its a great subject and we have miles to go before anything solid gets settled...if anything gets settled.

The Pentagon is the most complex and well hidden of all the events on 9/11 in my view.

There are airvehicles seen in the skies around WDC when there ere not supposed to be-NOT shown on RADES radar data...there are eye-ear-nose witnesses about an internal explosion several miniutes before whatever the airvehicle was actually arrived at the Pentagon...and more as you know.